NationStates Jolt Archive

Concerning the reply that I received to my GHR about the recently-submitted proposal 'Sexual Privacy Act' _

"The [re]submitted proposal 'Sexual Privacy Act' contains an IDEOLOGICAL BAN (effectively, against running nations in true conformity with ANY puritanical creed (such as Calvinism, fundamentalist Islam, or the Kawaiians' worship of 'The Cute One'...)"
That's too narrow an interpretation of the ruling. The game has settings for "New York Times Democracy" and "Psychotic Dictatorship", so you can't ban democracies or dictatorships or such. We've stretched that so that you can't ban theocracies, but you can certainly force them to alter their beliefs via WA resolution. Otherwise, we'd have to cancel 100% of resolutions, because someone somewhere would say "it's against my religion!"

Are you assuming that people choose to have a theocratic government first, and only then decide which religion to follow, rather than vice versa?!? If so then that seems decidely ridiculous to me...
How do you SERIOUSLY think the members of a theocratic government -- and their subjects -- would respond to being told "You can still be a theocratic nation, but now you've got to follow a different creed"?
Surely it's the religion itself that's the actual ideology, and theocratic government is (unless the religion's deity-given laws themselves insist on one, of course...) just a method that could be chosen for enforcing its rules: After all, there could well be governments that aren't theocracies in the standard definition of that term (meaning governments run, according to a religion's laws, by priests of that religion) but that still want to impose a specifc faith's rules anyway... Hereditary monarchs, dictators, and even democratically-elected political parties have all done so here in RL, after all...

Saying that "you can't ban ideologies but you can certainly force them to alter their beliefs" is effectively banning those beliefs (especially if their entire code of behaviour is considered deity-given and indivisible, so that they can't just change any bits of it that might become unpopular, which is a viewpoint that also has RL precedents), isn't it? Aren't religions counted as 'ideologies' under this game's rules?

Re your point that "Otherwise, we'd have to cancel 100% of resolutions, because someone somewhere would say "it's against my religion!": I can see the potential problem, and in my own opinion _
It would be reasonable to say that the ideology-protection rule only covers matters inside nations, rather than interactions between them, because an international organisation like the WA would be pointless if it couldn't even affect international interactions.
If a proposal would affect nations' internal affairs but that claim that "it's against my religion" is the first time that the religion in question -- or, at least, that particular one of its rules -- has been mentioned, then I'd accept the dismissal of such unsubstantiated claims.
If the faith claimed is just a general one (such as 'Christianity') whose rules have historically been subject to multiple interpretations then -- unless the proposal would violate all of the widely-accepted versions -- the proposal should probably be allowed.
BUT if a proposal would affect nations' internal affairs, and would be against the rules of any well-documented religion or specific sect to which a NS nation's government claims allegiance (which would probably mean mostly RL ones, although some NS-based faiths -- such as that of The Eternal Kawaii -- are probably described in suffiicent detail to qualify too) -- and those rules are, for theological reasons, inflexible -- then if the rule against ideological bans is to mean anything I don't see how that proposal could be allowed.

Here are some RL examples of governments that would find this proposal unacceptable for religious reasons: any Islamic one that holds to 'Shariah' law (which is considered to be divinely-inspired, and is definitely both puritannical and inflexible), such as those of modern-day Iran or Saudi Arabia as well as many further back in history; Oliver Cromwell, as dictator in 1650s Britain; the 'Pilgrim Fathers' when they controlled Massachussetts.
Are you going to suggest that their beliefs shouldn't count as 'ideologies?

And if the 'no ideological bans' rule doesn't protect religious ideologies then could you please amend the posted version to say so, so that people aren't mislead into thinking they've been promised more than is actually the case?

That ruling was from me. If you don't mind, I'm going to open this up to non-mods as well to prevent it from just being the Hack and Fris show.

Let's see what the possibilities are, both from an ideological perspective but also from a game mechanics perspective. Bear in mind that the game code is fairly rigid, so we may have to make compromises to make it work as a game.

Our opnions, huh?

Well, keep in mind that the current theocracies (Iran, Vatican City, and maybe some other countries) have changed since the equivalents a few hundred years ago. Even Afghanistan under the taliban (which, arguably, was the most extreme theocracy anytime recently) had some changes since the time they tried to emulate (such as allowing radios and guns). Therefore, I feel that no, "My nation is a theocracy so we get immunity!" is not a valid excuse.

(Note: yes, I'm a mod, but this is my non-modly aspect speaking)

I work on the assumption that if it appears as a NationStates category of government, it's a political ideology. From this, I think, it would follow that the particular religion of a theocracy would also be the political ideology in that state, and you can't ban ideologies. That is, you can't write a legal WA resolution specifically banning, say, the religion known as Cannibalism.

I would say, however, that you can ban specific tenets of the religion, however central they may be.

So a proposal banning the eating of people would be legal. If it passed, the player of the nation that practised the religion of Cannibalism would have a number of in-game choices:


leave the WA.
stay in and RP compliance -- the overthrow of the theocracy; a priestly pronouncement that "eating people" was always symbolic, and henceforth will be practised by eating holy gingerbread people; whatever.
stay in and RP defiance -- announce you're at war with supporters of the reso (but meanly refuse to RP a war, heh-heh-heh), or just cock a snook at the WA and invite it to do its worst.
stay in and do nothing. You may lose some respect, you may not. Meh.
write a repeal.

If you want an argument based on existing NS case law, I'd say that free trade resolutions undermine a basic tenet of many lefty nations' ideologies (mine included) , but there are in-game solutions available, so free trade laws are legal.

And, if you want to argue that it's not realistic, don't bother, because RL is not NS.

But, if you're determined to anyway, consider this likely RL argument:

God has given us Her laws.

This new factor didn't exist when She gave us those laws.

But she, being God, knew that it and many others would arise.

There was no point in Her giving laws about it then, because we, not knowing what it was about, would have misunderstood.

So She divinely inspired some to be Leaders of Her people.

Those Leaders now say X.

True, the Leaders said Y yesterday, but that was because the mind of God had not been fully revealed (had been misinterpreted) on this subject.

Don't take this as any sort of ruling. I just can't resist rules-lawyering.:tongue:

EDIT: Sorry, I missed this bit: Saying that "you can't ban ideologies but you can certainly force them to alter their beliefs" is effectively banning those beliefs

I'd think it's more of a case that "you can't ban ideologies but you can certainly try to force them to alter their beliefs". Every WA resolution tries to make nations do something that lots of them don't want to do, but there are built in, in-game ways to make the attempts less than successful.

Also sorry for not switching back to Ardchoillean Admin to say this. Let's face it, I'm dead lazy.

I know i had Mongkha bang on about this in the w.a. but i really think this debate hinges on terminology.

Ideologies are man made, usually political, ideas which concern in this case systems of government. Theocracy is one of these, and mind you theocracy is a pretty broad term encompassing myriad forms of government, the rules on ideological bans seem in my opinion to be protecting the diversity of government styles and player's imaginative responses to the game.

Religions are (if they are to be believed ) god made and in N.S. come in every shape and size, they're all chiefly concerned with absolute truth outside of human theories. This is what makes them the exact analogue of Philosophy, which is the investigation of absolute truth in the absence of god.

That being said i wouldn't argue that the rules on ideological bans shouldn't be stretched to include philosophy/religion if that's what the consensus of mods thinks should happen ( and since i'm not a mod, just a lowly wee nearly-newbie i'm guessing it shouldn't matter even if i did argue this ) but banning specific religious practices or specific religious laws is hardly an ideological ban since it doesn't ban the entire ideology of Theocracy. This kind of resolution only says " your theocracy, must change a specific law or practice", the people of this theocracy can carry on believing what they wish and the state/religious hierarchy can carry on ruling as it sees fit in all but one specific way.

Well that's my humble opinion for what it's worth.

U.

Firstly, here are two further points, which (as the library was closing) I didn’t have time to post yesterday _

1. You mentioned that the existence of ‘Psychotic Dictatorship’ and ‘New York Times Democracy’ categories for nations is why you have to enforce the “No Ideological Bans” rule with respect to the concepts of Dictatorship and Democracy respectively, but do you really need a reminder that there is also a ‘Moralistic Democracy’ category? How could nations be run under that heading — or, for that matter, under such “opposed” ones as ‘Civil Rights Lovefest’ — if the power to legislate nationally on such an important aspect of Morality/Rights were to be taken away from them?

2. Looking more closely at the effects of the proposal in question, it wouldn’t even let nations retain any existing laws that they might have against — and, therefore, would force their governments to condone — the practice of Incest. That wouldn’t just be incompatible with running nations according to ’puritanical’ doctrines, it would be incompatible with running nations according to the rules of ANY well-known Christian, Jewish or Islamic sect… NOW is it enough to qualify as an Ideological Ban?
(This point, incidentally, is the only one about which the Bears themselves object IC on the grounds of morality rather than just on the grounds of sovereignty…)

Our opnions, huh?

Well, keep in mind that the current theocracies (Iran, Vatican City, and maybe some other countries) have changed since the equivalents a few hundred years ago. Even Afghanistan under the taliban (which, arguably, was the most extreme theocracy anytime recently) had some changes since the time they tried to emulate (such as allowing radios and guns). Therefore, I feel that no, "My nation is a theocracy so we get immunity!" is not a valid excuse.
Changes to allow for new factors, maybe, but how much do those existing [RL]thoecracies actually overturn their older rules on matters that were already the subject of legislation? Not a lot, if at all, I think... For example Iran still executes "apostates" (and there was nearly a case of this, quite recently, in post-Taliban Afghanistan too...), various nations or sub-nations that are also run under 'Shariah' law (although in some cases as monarchies or dictatorships -- or even as democracies in which devout Islamists happen to be a majority...) still regard death by stoning as a correct punishment for women taken in adultery, and the Vatican still limits priestly office to men...

Firstly, here are two further points, which (as the library was closing) I didn’t have time to post yesterday _

1. You mentioned that the existence of ‘Psychotic Dictatorship’ and ‘New York Times Democracy’ categories for nations is why you have to enforce the “No Ideological Bans” rule with respect to the concepts of Dictatorship and Democracy respectively, but do you really need a reminder that there is also a ‘Moralistic Democracy’ category? How could nations be run under that heading — or, for that matter, under such “opposed” ones as ‘Civil Rights Lovefest’ — if the power to legislate nationally on such an important aspect of Morality/Rights were to be taken away from them?

2. Looking more closely at the effects of the proposal in question, it wouldn’t even let nations retain any existing laws that they might have against — and, therefore, would force their governments to condone — the practice of Incest. That wouldn’t just be incompatible with running nations according to ’puritanical’ doctrines, it would be incompatible with running nations according to the rules of ANY well-known Christian, Jewish or Islamic sect… NOW is it enough to qualify as an Ideological Ban?
(This point, incidentally, is the only one about which the Bears themselves object IC on the grounds of morality rather than just on the grounds of sovereignty…)


Well for starters the power to legislate on "morality/Rights" would not be taken away from governments by the resolution in question after all what people get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms is hardly the summation of a nation's sphere of legislative power in "morality/rights". In the case of theocracies the "church" could continue to teach that any practices it wished were "sinfull" and thereby continue to control the moral decisions of their people, they just would not be able to write into law any of these proscriptions.

Secondly asking nations not to criminalise people for sleeping with their siblings is hardly a ban on theocracy and it is certainly not a ban on any particular religion or all of them. Religions consist of more than just the prohibition on incest. And prohibition of incest has nothing to do with the ideology of Theocracy.

IMHO. U.

(Note: yes, I'm a mod, but this is my non-modly aspect speaking)

I work on the assumption that if it appears as a NationStates category of government, it's a political ideology. From this, I think, it would follow that the particular religion of a theocracy would also be the political ideology in that state, and you can't ban ideologies. That is, you can't write a legal WA resolution specifically banning, say, the religion known as Cannibalism.

I would say, however, that you can ban specific tenets of the religion, however central they may be.

So a proposal banning the eating of people would be legal. If it passed, the player of the nation that practised the religion of Cannibalism would have a number of in-game choices:


leave the WA.
stay in and RP compliance -- the overthrow of the theocracy; a priestly pronouncement that "eating people" was always symbolic, and henceforth will be practised by eating holy gingerbread people; whatever.
stay in and RP defiance -- announce you're at war with supporters of the reso (but meanly refuse to RP a war, heh-heh-heh), or just cock a snook at the WA and invite it to do its worst.
stay in and do nothing. You may lose some respect, you may not. Meh.
write a repeal.On which basis, although we couldn't ban the existence of Communism as a political ideology, could we ban governmental enforcement of its economic doctrines by guaranteeing rights of personal property?
And I personally would consider the third and fourth possibilities in your list of potential responses to unwanted legislation as decidely improper, given the "compliance is mandatory" rule...

If you want an argument based on existing NS case law, I'd say that free trade resolutions undermine a basic tenet of many lefty nations' ideologies (mine included) , but there are in-game solutions available, so free trade laws are legal.
As I said in my original post here, I think that members of an international organisation like the WA have to accept its rules for international interactions between them, it's only their internal affairs that I personally would see the "no ideological bans" rule as protecting.

And, if you want to argue that it's not realistic, don't bother, because RL is not NS.

But, if you're determined to anyway, consider this likely RL argument:

God has given us Her laws.

This new factor didn't exist when She gave us those laws.

But she, being God, knew that it and many others would arise.

There was no point in Her giving laws about it then, because we, not knowing what it was about, would have misunderstood.

So She divinely inspired some to be Leaders of Her people.

Those Leaders now say X.

True, the Leaders said Y yesterday, but that was because the mind of God had not been fully revealed (had been misinterpreted) on this subject.
But what about those religions (such as, to use the obvious example, Islam again) in which the original laws specifically require that any new laws created later on be theologically compatible with those older ones (e.g. Islam and Shariah law, again)? Look at how a committee of Ayatollahs constitutionally possesses veto power over the legislature's actions in modern-day Iran, for example.
And certain religions' early rules are SO definite on matters of sexual morality that I just don't se any way that the argument "This new factor didn't exist when She gave us those laws" would be accepted in those matters by their devout worshippers.

I think it's more of a case that "you can't ban ideologies but you can certainly try to force them to alter their beliefs". Every WA resolution tries to make nations do something that lots of them don't want to do, but there are built in, in-game ways to make the attempts less than successful.
So what built in, in-game ways would there be -- other than leaving the WA -- for nations to retain even their existing laws against Incest, let alone any other of their existing laws against "sexual immorality", if the 'Sexual Privacy Act' were to be passed in its current form? Its wording doesn't excatly contain any obvious loopholes...

I know i had Mongkha bang on about this in the w.a. but i really think this debate hinges on terminology.

Ideologies are man made, usually political, ideas which concern in this case systems of government. Theocracy is one of these, and mind you theocracy is a pretty broad term encompassing myriad forms of government, the rules on ideological bans seem in my opinion to be protecting the diversity of government styles and player's imaginative responses to the game.But my reason for disagreeing with that argument, as I've already said before but will repeat here for the sake of any newcomers, is that (at least IC) people don't think "Let's have a theocractic government, that's a good way to run a country: Now, what religion's rules shall we choose to run it under?": What they think is "We really approve of this specific religion, so let's run our country according to its rules"... so it's the religion itself that's the actual ideology, and 'theocracy' is only one of the possible systems that could be chosen to enforce that religion's rules. And the relevant NS rule, at least as currenty written, does say that you can't ban ideologies rather than that you can't ban political systems.

Religions are (if they are to be believed ) god made and in N.S. come in every shape and size, they're all chiefly concerned with absolute truth outside of human theories. This is what makes them the exact analogue of Philosophy, which is the investigation of absolute truth in the absence of god.But that doesn't mean that they're not "ideologies": They're ideals, based on ideas, to which people have loyalty... and an ideology by any other name is still an ideology.

but banning specific religious practices or specific religious laws is hardly an ideological ban since it doesn't ban the entire ideology of Theocracy. This kind of resolution only says " your theocracy, must change a specific law or practice", the people of this theocracy can carry on believing what they wish and the state/religious hierarchy can carry on ruling as it sees fit in all but one specific way.Whether the first part of this argument is correct hinges on whether it's Religion or Theocracy that actually counts as a type of ideology, and on this point we clearly disagree.
The second part of your argument fails, in my opinion, on two counts:
1. Whatever "specific law or practice" is involved could be so integral a part of the religion's rules that scrapping it without visibly abandoning that system of rules as a whole would be impossible.
2. Some religion's rules actually require their believers to enforce them politically (Islam, again, as the obvious RL example...) if they're in positions of power, rather than to let their subjects do whatever they want.

Well for starters the power to legislate on "morality/Rights" would not be taken away from governments by the resolution in question after all what people get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms is hardly the summation of a nation's sphere of legislative power in "morality/rights". In the case of theocracies the "church" could continue to teach that any practices it wished were "sinfull" and thereby continue to control the moral decisions of their people, they just would not be able to write into law any of these proscriptions.Theocracy means government by a religion's leaders according to that religion's rules. Therefore if a religion's rules condemn certain types of behaviour then a theocracy run according to those rules really SHOULD have laws on the matter.
An important point that you're ignoring (or of which you were ignorant?) is that for some religions the religious code of laws not only does cover such matters but also says that it MUST be the national laws on those matters in any lands that are run according to the religion's principles.

Secondly asking nations not to criminalise people for sleeping with their siblings is hardly a ban on theocracy and it is certainly not a ban on any particular religion or all of them. Religions consist of more than just the prohibition on incest. And prohibition of incest has nothing to do with the ideology of Theocracy.
UNLESS that religion has strict rules on the matter which its followers are theologically required to impose on everybody who's under their jursidiction...

And forcing religious governments to allow people under their jurisdiction to commit acts which those religions consider sinful is forcing those governments members to condone those sins... which their theology might well (as at least some RL creeds do) regard as a sinful act in itself...

Well what is your position? That the SPA is a violation of NatSov or an ideological ban? or perhaps some chimeric amalgam of the two?

Using arguments about real world religion doesn't cut it because any close study of the history of religion reveals infinite variation of interpretation of religious law and practice in all places and at all times. Religion has always been cany enough to incorperate ideas it could not successfully oppose into doctrine and where this was not possible to allow rank hypocracy instead. This is the case even in the oft sited Iran.

The fact is that religion is, despite claims to the contrary on its part, a moveable feast. But since those who order these revisions do not claim human authority for their actions but instead claim divine will, they prevent their faiths from being reclassified as ideologies.

I'm purely going on dictionary definitions of terms here, and how these terms have been interpreted in the main for a very long time.

I think the leaders of any of the worlds great religions would strongly dissagree that their faiths constituted nothing more than mere human ideology.

You say theocracy is only one of the systems a religion may use to impose itself upon a culture, but that is the whole point, the idea
of a system which gives religion temporal power is an ideology, religion is a from of philosophy, to deny that is to totally redefine accepted terminology and flies in the face of logic.

EDIT: I think i'm right in saying that your other nation supported "fair criminal trial" ( sorry to harp on about it but actually it is instructive ) and in any case no one seriously claimed it was an ideological ban even though it went right to the heart of national sovereignty, and in some cases ideology too, police states and dictatorships don't normally allow fair trial for a very good reason and one which is central to how they function and rule themselves.

But lets use the example of Theocracy, would you claim by use of your logic that fair criminal trial was an ideological ban if i told you that the faith my theocracy practices values above all things right action and lawfullness ( rather like RL Zoroastrianism ) and that the only way my people can be judged is by an idol of our god and a priest in absolute privacy from all scrutiny? I suspect not.

U.

Ultimately, I'm very reluctant to use the Ideological Ban excuse to remove ANY proposals.

The idea of the WA is a place where nations get to argue and vote upon the merits and flaws of proposed legislation. Passing that decision to the moderators, often based on a single player complaint, subverts the role of the WA.

Despite multiple telling arguments, I'm sticking with my initial decision. The rule was added to give us an excuse to remove the "Ban all democracies and make them dictatorships under ME, mwah-hahaha" sorts of silly shit, not genuine political or philosophical discussions.

The RP solutions posted by Ardchoillean Admin strike me as a much better approach than the Deus Ex Machina 'appeal to the mods for removal' approach.

Despite multiple telling arguments, I'm sticking with my initial decision. The rule was added to give us an excuse to remove the "Ban all democracies and make them dictatorships under ME, mwah-hahaha" sorts of silly shit, not genuine political or philosophical discussions.Then perhaps the version of that rule that's included in the official proposal-writing rules could be re-written, to let people know in advance that although it protects political ideologies, and possibly socio-economic ones, any ideologies that are based on religion or other matters of morality/liberty are fair game for change?

Oh well, it looks as though Bears Armed's term as a WA Delegate will be coming to an end much sooner than originally scheduled. Adding this [re]definition of the rules to the fact that due to RL matters I simply don't have anywhere near as much time available for NS as was formerly the case, I'm out of here...

EDIT:

The idea of the WA is a place where nations get to argue and vote upon the merits and flaws of proposed legislation.Except that it isn't "the nations" arguing and voting, is it? It's their players, most of whom seem to come from just a few RL countries, quite a few of whom seem to base their attitudes mainly on how they themselves would like to be treated in RL and appparently can't understand that some other people are running nations with different attitudes to their own homelands...

Then perhaps the version of that rule that's included in the official proposal-writing rules could be re-written, to let people know in advance that although it protects political ideologies, and possibly socio-economic ones, any ideologies that are based on religion or other matters of morality/liberty are fair game for change?

Oh well, it looks as though Bears Armed's term as a WA Delegate will be coming to an end much sooner than originally scheduled. Adding this [re]definition of the rules to the fact that due to RL matters I simply don't have anywhere near as much time available for NS as was formerly the case, I'm out of here...

That sounds suspiciously like storming out in a strop and slamming the door behind you.

IMHO. U.

Well what is your position? That the SPA is a violation of NatSov or an ideological ban? or perhaps some chimeric amalgam of the two?
What's so "chimeric" about the combination? The existence of the 'No ideological bans' rule is (or, at any rate, was) one of the main theoretical justifications for the argument that nations retain a considerable degree of sovereignty when they join the NSUN/WA.

Using arguments about real world religion doesn't cut it because any close study of the history of religion reveals infinite variation of interpretation of religious law and practice in all places and at all times. Religion has always been cany enough to incorperate ideas it could not successfully oppose into doctrine and where this was not possible to allow rank hypocracy instead. This is the case even in the oft sited Iran. But we have to use RL religion as our main examples, both because it's so much better-documented than NS religion and because MANY nations in NS follow RL religions anyway.
The fact is that religion is, despite claims to the contrary on its part, a moveable feast. But since those who order these revisions do not claim human authority for their actions but instead claim divine will, they prevent their faiths from being [reclassified as ideologies.So show me the major changes that you claim have occurred to Shariah law: Admittedly there are now some Muslim-led governments that accept other law-codes too, but they don't claim to be following Shariah (with the only additions allowed being ones that are theologically compatible with its original rules) as such... and the fundamentalism of those who do follow it as their over-riding law is surely an ideology as most other people would understand that term.

I'm purely going on dictionary definitions of terms here, and how these terms have been interpreted in the main for a very long time.

I think the leaders of any of the worlds great religions would strongly dissagree that their faiths constituted nothing more than mere human ideology.Agreed; If not 'Faith' (or even '"The Truth"...) they'd probably call it divinely-inspired ideology instead... and I'm sure that they'd strongly disagree with the label 'philosophy', which you tried to apply, too.

You say theocracy is only one of the systems a religion may use to impose itself upon a culture, but that is the whole point, the idea of a system which gives religion temporal power is an ideology, religion is a from of philosophy, to deny that is to totally redefine accepted terminology and flies in the face of logic. For some religions the creation of a theocratic regime may actually be an intrinsic part of their core doctrines, making them a part of the faith/ideology/philosophy as a whole: In other cases, where a religion's rules could (in terms of "theological legitimacy") be introduced not only by those means but also through other forms of political system instead, clearly it is the religion itself that is the core belief/ideology/philosophy/whatever and the theocracy is just a means to an end... Christian theocracy is NOT the same 'ideology' as Islamic theocracy which is NOT the same 'ideology' as Jewish theocracy which is NOT the same 'ideology' as Hindu theocracy which is NOT the same 'ideology' as Wiccan theocracy which is not the same 'ideology' as Kawaiian theocracy, etc...

EDIT: I think i'm right in saying that your other nation supported "fair criminal trial" ( sorry to harp on about it but actually it is instructive ) and in any case no one seriously claimed it was an ideological ban even though it went right to the heart of national sovereignty, and in some cases ideology too, police states and dictatorships don't normally allow fair trial for a very good reason and one which is central to how they function and rule themselves.No, although that nation already had rules about fair trials, I voted against it on the grounds that it was too specific in its details to be acceptable on NatSov grounds. However I wouldn't have called that an 'ideological ban' because, although sthe people running governments according to certain systems might favour the use of "unfair" trials for getting rid of their opponents, i can't think of any ideology that actually admits to this being amongst its 'principles'...

But lets use the example of Theocracy, would you claim by use of your logic that fair criminal trial was an ideological ban if i told you that the faith my theocracy practices values above all things right action and lawfullness ( rather like RL Zoroastrianism ) and that the only way my people can be judged is by an idol of our god and a priest in absolute privacy from all scrutiny? I suspect not.Actually, yes, I would. After all, in a multiverse that includes anthropomorphic bears, witches, dragons, elves, demons, vampires, talking squirrels, invisible wabbits, wizards, gremlins, ghosts, and at least two deities (and at least one divinely-created construct) who actually appeared within the NSUN HQ , such a claim about trials in your nation might well be 100% correct. ;)

That sounds suspiciously like storming out in a strop and slamming the door behind you.
No, I honestly dont have as much time as I'd hoped would be the case available this autumn... and neither Bears Armed nor any of my other nations has a government that would remain in an organisation like this without a guarantee such as just been declared void.

What's so "chimeric" about the combination? The existence of the 'No ideological bans' rule is (or, at any rate, was) one of the main theoretical justifications for the argument that nations retain a considerable degree of sovereignty when they join the NSUN/WA.

But we have to use RL religion as our main examples, both because it's so much better-documented than NS religion and because MANY nations in NS follow RL religions anyway.
So show me the major changes that you claim have occurred to Shariah law: Admittedly there are now some Muslim-led governments that accept other law-codes too, but they don't claim to be following Shariah (with the only additions allowed being ones that are theologically compatible with its original rules) as such... and the fundamentalism of those who do follow it as their over-riding law is surely an ideology as most other people would understand that term.

Agreed; If not 'Faith' (or even '"The Truth"...) they'd probably call it divinely-inspired ideology instead... and I'm sure that they'd strongly disagree with the label 'philosophy', which you tried to apply, too.

For some religions the creation of a theocratic regime may actually be an intrinsic part of their core doctrines, making them a part of the faith/ideology/philosophy as a whole: In other cases, where a religion's rules could (in terms of "theological legitimacy") be introduced not only by those means but also through other forms of political system instead, clearly it is the religion itself that is the core belief/ideology/philosophy/whatever and the theocracy is just a means to an end... Christian theocracy is NOT the same 'ideology' as Islamic theocracy which is NOT the same 'ideology' as Jewish theocracy which is NOT the same 'ideology' as Hindu theocracy which is NOT the same 'ideology' as Wiccan theocracy which is not the same 'ideology' as Kawaiian theocracy, etc...

No, although that nation already had rules about fair trials, I voted against it on the grounds that it was too specific in its details to be acceptable on NatSov grounds. However I wouldn't have called that an 'ideological ban' because, although sthe people running governments according to certain systems might favour the use of "unfair" trials for getting rid of their opponents, i can't think of any ideology that actually admits to this being amongst its 'principles'...

Actually, yes, I would. After all, in a multiverse that includes anthropomorphic bears, witches, dragons, elves, demons, vampires, talking squirrels, invisible wabbits, wizards, gremlins, ghosts, and at least two deities (and at least one divinely-created construct) who actually appeared within the NSUN HQ , such a claim about trials in your nation might well be 100% correct. ;)


No, I honestly dont have as much time as I'd hoped would be the case available this autumn... and neither Bears Armed nor any of my other nations has a government that would remain in an organisation like this without a guarantee such as just been declared void.


On whether fair criminal trial might be considered an ideological ban, i have to point out that many forms of government, including communist dictatorships or their fascist counterparts or in fact many of the actual categories of government in this game would freely admit that their legal systems were in complete contrast ( for ideological reasons ) to that outlined in the resolution, the fact that this resolution was not in fact an ideological ban was because it did not completely outlaw dictatorship or police state e.t.c. just one of their practices.

This applies to theocracies too, islamic theocracies, hindu theocracies, jewish theocracies e.t.c. may all be different in their nature or character but they all share the one basic feature, which is that they are theocracies, this idea that these religions may apply their spiritual power to the temporal world and run a state is the only ideology in question. The individual practices and laws of these governments are well within the legal powers of the w.a. just as is the case with dictatorships et all.

I seriously doubt that any rl religion would call itself a " divinely inspired ideology" since this would be to suggest that god only has ideas for human life, and not ,as they actually claim, absolutely true dictates which are not debatable.

Whether or not these faiths actually adhere to this notion of the infalibility of the word of god, or in practice seek to subvert it for the purposes of practicality does not change the fact that they claim this infalibility.

In the case of Islam and its Sharia law, it is debated among islamic scholars whether or not the version of the of the Quran produced in written form for the first time by Caliph Othman was an accurate version of the previously oral accounts of the words of the prophet and his revelation, many argue from very good evidence that sharia and the basic laws of islam were far more unorthodox before this first written Quran and that Othman sought to bring all muslims into a closer union and within a more common constitution of divine laws to butress the power of the caliphate.

I really will have to defer to the Oxford English Dictionary on the matter of the definition of the word Philosophy ( which didn't always have the dubious conotations it has these days and was widely used to describe religion in the past ) - " Philosophy- the use of reason and argument in seeking absolute truth and knowledge of reality " . If this is not the aim of religion, achieved by different means, then i don't know what is.

U.

Except that it isn't "the nations" arguing and voting, is it? It's their players, most of whom seem to come from just a few RL countries,

What you appear to be asking me to do is substitute the judgment of two, maybe three players (myself, Hack, and Ardchoille) for the judgment of all the other players of the game. While I have a great deal of confidence in my own judgment (as well as that of my fellow mods), it does defeat the purpose of having player participation when we do all the thinking for you.

The arguments you've made so far form a reasonable basis for campaigning against certain proposals. What you haven't sold me on is any justification for having Mods make that judgment automatically.

As for the phrasing of the ideology rule...
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.
That last line is simply an example. Substitute "religious ideology" and your choice of topics, and our position is unchanged. I don't see any reason to expand or enhance the phrasing based on a single player's complaint 3.5 years after it was posted.

Most players would rather debate the issues with each other than have them preemptively decided by moderator fiat. As such, I hope the narrow interpretation of the ideological ban rule continues.

I have a question: in the game, "ideological ban" comes up as a game mechanics violation. Which means it's based on the inability of WA proposals to ban a government type--government types the game code must continue to permit regardless of what is passed.

Why religious ideologies, then?

I mean, if it's solely a game mechanics issue, one could very easily outlaw christianity or atheism and not violate game mechanics, right? There isn't a "Catholic" or "Godless" government type a proposal would be outlawing, right?

I guess I should refine my question to save the mods time of going over anything already discussed (and to not-so-inconspicuously bump my previous question...heh heh heh).
That's too narrow an interpretation of the ruling. The game has settings for "New York Times Democracy" and "Psychotic Dictatorship", so you can't ban democracies or dictatorships or such. We've stretched that so that you can't ban theocracies, but you can certainly force them to alter their beliefs via WA resolution. Otherwise, we'd have to cancel 100% of resolutions, because someone somewhere would say "it's against my religion!"First off, I'm totally not questioning to be obnoxiously nit-picky or to doubt the rulings so far. I'm just trying to understand the limits of this rule as well as possible. I've seen a lot of arguments like "you can't propose that: it's an ideological ban" recently. I really need to understand this rule better to respond adequately.

In the quote you say the ideological ban rule is "stretched" to protect theocracies, too. I think I understand that. My question is, does that mean ideological bans involving theocracies are handled differently?

Lemme be as specific as possible. I've never found myself seriously wondering if a proposal of mine is approaching an ideological ban. I've always considered the rule (which I agree is very necessary) is designed to stop "The WA hates Democracy, RESOLVES to end all democracies in the WA".

This is for an obvious reason. It's the same reason a resolution can't add war or create a new spiffy look for the site or force Max to include Powerhungry Chipmunks in his next book (though now that I think about it...): it would conflict with the reality of the game (or Max's reality). No matter how strongly worded your resolution is, there won't be war, the site look won't change and Max will still completely ignore the idiot whose been playing his game under the masquerade of rodent-hood.

But since there aren't theocracies as government types...Is the "no ideological ban" rule applied differently for them? I mean, banning theocracies, or a type of theocracy technically isn't going to conflict with game mechanics, it isn’t conflicting with a game reality, just the RP some people use in the game. Does that mean it's looked at differently by mods, than other ideological bans?

More to the point, I guess, if I just avoid "The WA hates theocracies, RESOLVES to end all theocracies in the WA", am I obeying the rule?

I think the Ideology Ban got added back in the Enodian days, or perhaps Hack built it / updated it when he created the current rules sticky. Either way, Theocracies got tacked on somewhere in that process. What would really be helpful would be for someone with more time than me to do some research on that and pull out the precedents.

As you said, theocracies aren't actually a game mechanics issue. Maybe we should consider revising that aspect and put the Church back into play.

I think the Ideology Ban got added back in the Enodian days, or perhaps Hack built it / updated it when he created the current rules sticky.
It's the latter (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8452441&postcount=2):
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, christians, atheist, or any other political, religous, or economic ideology.
Such a rule doesn't appear in the Enodian rules (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176).

It was awhile ago, but as I recall, my thoughts went something like this:

1) The game mechanics don't allow banning things like capitalism or dictatorships.
2) When compiling a list, you need to include antonyms, such as communism and democracy.
3) The list should also be expanded to include a broader definitions of ideologies, hence conservative and liberal.
4) Continuing down that line, we add in atheists and religions.

In other words, it was an organic growth from existing game limitations, with the stock response to complaints about issues mocking group X in mind.

I'm not opposed to reassessing that inclusion, but I don't mind it staying in the list either.

Originally Posted by NationStates Moderators
"The [re]submitted proposal 'Sexual Privacy Act' contains an IDEOLOGICAL BAN (effectively, against running nations in true conformity with ANY puritanical creed (such as Calvinism, fundamentalist Islam, or the Kawaiians' worship of 'The Cute One'...)"
That's too narrow an interpretation of the ruling. The game has settings for "New York Times Democracy" and "Psychotic Dictatorship", so you can't ban democracies or dictatorships or such. We've stretched that so that you can't ban theocracies, but you can certainly force them to alter their beliefs via WA resolution. Otherwise, we'd have to cancel 100% of resolutions, because someone somewhere would say "it's against my religion!"(emphasis added)

Please make that "... alter their behavior ...". My preference would be to allow anyone to believe anything they like, and have proposals only govern behavior.

Ballotonia

(emphasis added)

Please make that "... alter their behavior ...". My preference would be to allow anyone to believe anything they like, and have proposals only govern behavior.

Ballotonia

Indeed. There's a big difference between a proposal that mandates that all believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn must be shot on sight and a proposal that mandates that people who happen to believe in the IPU stop shooting everyone in sight.

In other words, it was an organic growth from existing game limitations, with the stock response to complaints about issues mocking group X in mind.

I'm not opposed to reassessing that inclusion, but I don't mind it staying in the list either.And, for the record, I don't mind it staying either. I was more asking the question to know how valid the argument is of those who cry "That's an ideological ban! Bloody Murder!".

So, if I understand correctly, the rule (as it stands) protects two types of ideologies, for two different reasons:
1) Game Mechanics ideologies, for obvious reason.
2) Other ideologies: theological (Catholic, Muslim, Atheist), political (Conservative, Liberal) for...

I think it's perfectly justifiable to make the second variety of ideological bans illegal. But I think the reason for it is along the lines that it would make RP in the WA bad if one were passed. I mean, it's not only horrendously uncreative but intrinsically divisive to pass a resolution that says "All conservatives are banned from the WA" or "All atheists are banned from the WA". It's more against players than against the issues a player stands for.

I mean, the WA, in large part, derives its fun from being a place to 'get to the bottom' of things...it's a place to think through why such and such belief is undemocratic or limiting human rights or so forth. If people were able to avoid addressing the underlying issues an ideology holds to be true and instead attacked the ideology itself it would eliminate much of the WA's fun.

So the idea is, "you can't perform a frontal assault on an ideology because that's dumb and it would hurt the WA RP. But you can fight in the trenches, and assault the principles that hold up an ideology, one at a time."

That's how I understand it, at least...which is just a restatement of what Frisbeeteria said originally. I guess my doubt's resolved.