Ban Hate from TNP Act

This is a law that will allow the delegate to ban those who spread hate from the TNP gameside. Authored largely by @Peeps.

---

Section 7.3 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read as follows:

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Violators of NationStates rules, nations who harass those on the basis of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, language, religion, or national or social origin, or residents banned offsite by forum administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Residents banned on the basis of forum bans imposed by forum administration may not be banned for longer than the length of the ban imposed by forum administration.
13. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
14. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
15. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
16. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.
17. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.
18. Such regulations may not prohibit speech which is in the context of TNP politics.
19. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

Click to expand...

Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill of Rights shall be amended to read as follows:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution. This clause shall not protect speech that harasses others on the basis of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, language, religion, or national or social origin.

Click to expand...

No portion of this bill will take effect unless/until all portions take effect.

1. How would this interact with section 2 of the BoR?

2. Why the open-ended definition on hateful ideas?

3. Any thoughts on the appropriate lines for banning, when they have not (or can not, in the case of those who didn't join) been banned first from the forum or discord for such things?

I approve of this bill for obvious reasons, my suggestions would be to change it to the following:

No Place for Hate Act:

Section 7.3 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read as follows:

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Violators of NationStates rules, nations who offend or harass those on the basis of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, language, religion, or national or social origin, or residents banned offsite by forum administration, may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Residents banned on the basis of forum bans imposed by forum administration may not be banned for longer than the length of the ban imposed by forum administration.
13. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
14. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
15. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
16. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.
17. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.
18. Such regulations may not prohibit speech which is in the context of TNP politics.
19. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

Click to expand...

Section 2 of the Bill of Rights shall be amended to read as follows:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution. This clause shall not protect those who offend or harass those on the basis of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, language, religion, or national or social origin.

Click to expand...

No portion of this bill will take effect unless/until all portions take effect.

Click to expand...

I agree with peeps idea it makes it more clear on what it means.

Quite certain that this would violate BoR #1 as well.

"1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection and WA membership."

As much as I abhor fascism, it could be argued that a nation's decision to descend into it could be considered a "domestic policy".

Under this bill I could be banned because I espouse anti cop matters. The problem is when you legislate against “hate speech” you tend to give an abusive government ways to subjecate its citizens. Hate speech can be (and likely will be) subjective to the person making the decision.

I have largely accepted suggestions from @Peeps, because I realize my language is unspecific and open to abuse, as pointed out. I have also changed this to include Bill of Rights amendments so it doesn’t clash.

I oppose this bill. While I admire the intent behind it, "hate speech" can be nebulous to define. Even with the specifications added, I still see too much potential for abuse, especially given the nature of summary ejection and banning.

You forgot section 6 of the bill of rights, if you want to remove nations already existing in the region.

Questions.
1) How will this affect legitimate roleplay? If someone is offended by someone RPing, is that grounds to ban the RP nation?
2) My main concern is in the same vein as initially expressed by Dreadton. If the hate speech is not strong enough to warrant action by the NS mods, then is it sufficient to warrant action by our region? The revision seems to remove some of that, but I worry about more personal animosity becoming the basis for removal among a small group of people.

East Isles:

I oppose this bill. While I admire the intent behind it, "hate speech" can be nebulous to define. Even with the specifications added, I still see too much potential for abuse, especially given the nature of summary ejection and banning.

Click to expand...

There are already protections in that Citizens can't lose citizenship from ejections. Besides that if a Delegate decides to start summary ejecting and banning unfairly then it would likely be illegal (unless there is evidence that said nation has offended based on a protected class, which is sorta hard to do), and otherwise then perhaps it is time to recall said Delegate.

Former English Colony:

1) How will this affect legitimate roleplay? If someone is offended by someone RPing, is that grounds to ban the RP nation?
2) My main concern is in the same vein as initially expressed by Dreadton. If the hate speech is not strong enough to warrant action by the NS mods, then is it sufficient to warrant action by our region? The revision seems to remove some of that, but I worry about more personal animosity becoming the basis for removal among a small group of people.

Click to expand...

If an RP crosses a line and offends based on one of the protected classes I'm not sure that is an RP we want in TNP. At least I wouldn't want it. I think most of us know that at times NS mods don't make the best decisions. As the largest GCR and one of the most respected nations TNP should hold itself to a higher standard.

Apologies for the double post but I do not believe this would conflict with BoR #1. As this would apply solely to OOC things, at least that is how I intended, nation policies cannot OOC offend. Unless domestic policies also mean flag/motto etc.

So here's a collection of my thoughts so far.

The part of the law and Bill of Rights* being worked on is concerned with IC matters, decisions and policies and whatever related to how a nation governs itself as a nation. What Comfed seeks to do is go after people for bad OOC posts. And from my reading, the Bill of Rights changes go further than I think was intended. Technically what Comfed seems to be saying is "these protections don't apply to you if you make these bad posts" which is obviously different from saying "these types of things are not protected." In my view it can be read as stripping the BoR protection even if they have actual protected speech. That is to say, if they have the bad posts, then this law may actually allow them to completely lose these protections. I suspect a legal fight would sort that out but...I'm not sure. This ought to be tightened up, before we even consider if this is actually a good idea, which is probably a more relevant question.

The word "offend" is going to be a problem. "Harass" is better, but can still be subjective. I would say that an important thing to consider for what you want to do, is that we do give the delegate fairly broad RMB enforcement abilities. Look at clauses 17 and 18 - not only does the delegate have broad remit for regulating the RMB, but the speech that is explicitly protected related to TNP political speech. The fact that this law is concerned with IC matters is what makes your proposal awkward, but it's also a potential strength - the broadest application of this law is in OOC stuff, which is what you're really after here. You seem to want to explicitly go for ejection and banning, which is the one area where there is a lot of protection and a higher standard for action. Instead of simply describing types of offensive speech, perhaps look at how the speech is applied - go after speech, regardless of type, that targets specific players and is part of some sort of bullying or hostile engagement. You can hem and haw about whether someone speaking off the cuff is truly engaging in hateful, inappropriate speech, but when they spew fire on other people and the posts are of this nature, its a different story.

The thing I can't get around though is that all of these observations (the broad regulation of speech, the idea of going after targeted speech) can all be done now and I imagine are being done. Yet you proposed this bill, so there's a perceived lack of response or insufficient response. I think it would be useful for the Gameside Advocates to weigh in on this and tell us about how they enforce the delegate's regulations of the RMB, and what those guidelines are, so that we know what is being done but also what they feel cannot be done under existing law. That will be where we can try to build this change into the law and give us an idea of how to navigate the Bill of Rights.

*I actually think clause 2 of the Bill of Rights is also talking about IC, but it is a tad ambiguous and can be read as OOC. I don't think clause 1 needs to be targeted by this bill, but because of that ambiguity I guess we have to reckon with clause 2.

I understand the decision behind this bill, but this isn’t they way to implement it.

Another way may be expanding on how Border Control powers are used, and potential checks and balances on this.

I personally believe that this bill isnt needed and rather just more communication is needed.

BoR Clause 1 permits nations to have self-determination in terms of issue selection. The changes removes that if a person is offended on a number of basis. Looks like nations in TNP can't ban gay marriage anymore.

I think that currently the pathway to banning fascists in TNP is unclear as to if it is possible or how if it is possible—I support a clearer way, these changes are not it.

Rocketdog:

I understand the decision behind this bill, but this isn’t they way to implement it.

Another way may be expanding on how Border Control powers are used, and potential checks and balances on this.

I personally believe that this bill isnt needed and rather just more communication is needed.

Click to expand...

But...this is the section that expands on how BC powers are used, and this proposal is expanding them. The question of course is how you do it, and yes, what checks are in place. That's the debate we would need to have here.

The bill may not be needed if we believe the existing broad regulation powers in the clauses I mentioned are sufficient, but obviously some people do not. This is why, as the LGA, your input could be valuable. Not this input I quoted but, perhaps something more along the lines of what I pointed out in my previous post?

Incidentally, despite the discussion about RMB posts, I don't believe the proposed change is limited to those posts at present.

I mirror the view of Dreadton, FEC, and others - that such regulation is prone to abuse, and that offense taken is entirely subjective. Further, that any post that violates OOC game rules should be handled by NS moderators or our admin teams, and not be written into IC law.

I do not support this bill in any form. I do not believe it has a place in our regional law. I do not believe the RA should create such regulations. I understand the intent of the idea, and disagree with it.

Last post was my inital reaction, but after spending some time:

Current regulations in my opinion are sufficient in regulating the RMB, through clauses 11, 17-19. On political speech, clause 18, the purpose of GA's is to move topics when such political speech gets into the dangerous territory of trolling/flamebaiting, which generally works. Such ejections/bans on political speech generally happen when such speech is trolling or flamebaiting, then under clause 11 banning or ejecting should happen. (If clause 11 doesn't override provision in clause 18 then that needs to change). After 3-4 pages worth of political RMB posts, this is when it gets into the dangerous territory.

Other RMB posting should be regulated through clause 17. If nations disagree with the reason behind the suppression and/or ban then they are free to telegram the RO that performed the suppression or ban(jection) and seek clarification. If no resolution occurs then they can always bring it to the courts for review, as said in clause 19.

Such changes to the BoR should not occur, as pointed above clause 1 should not be modified. I ultimately violate what Nationstates is all about. It is a political simulation, and some people enjoy descending into fascism than they can. In clause 2, the main points are:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

Click to expand...

All nations have a right to free speech through the RMB. Free speech and when to determine if that has violated NS rules is currently determined under the current clauses in Section 7.3 of the legal code and should stay that way (through maybe mentioning the legal code if needed. Also not too sure if this makes sense.)

On @Praetor post about fascist nations, I generally agree with this and there needs to be a clearer way in the law on we deal with such nations.
Currently based on the posts of such nations, generally the GA's suppress these posts based on nationstates rules, and if it is serious trolling or baiting then banning.

I personally believe that, in terms of RP, that it is up to the RP moderators and not laws that decide on what should occur in their community.

Don't believe we need this bill, there just needs to be a solid discussion between mainly the GAs, the active RMB users, and the delegate on a proper way to deal with the RMB. Most of the GA's procedures have been built on previous experience, but I would like a permanent foundation on how the RMB is regulated before we set out on a bill that increases BC powers.

Peeps:

If an RP crosses a line and offends based on one of the protected classes I'm not sure that is an RP we want in TNP. At least I wouldn't want it. I think most of us know that at times NS mods don't make the best decisions. As the largest GCR and one of the most respected nations TNP should hold itself to a higher standard.

Click to expand...

Frankly the majority of non-RPing TNPers aren't qualified to decide what is and isn't acceptable in TNPRP.

St George:

Frankly the majority of non-RPing TNPers aren't qualified to decide what is and isn't acceptable in TNPRP.

Click to expand...

Additionally, Forum RP isn't even regulated by regional law. Beyond the RP Mods, that's for Forum Admin to take care of. Even nations banned gameside can technically participate in Forum RP as long as they haven't been forum banned.

For RMB RP, see RMB guidelines and NS rules.

Aside from the violations of various other parts of the legal code, what's the point?

When dealing with fascist, for every minute they exist, there is an exponentially increasing chance of them breaking a ban-able or kick-able rule. If they are so blatant, game mods will beat us to it most likely. Having to outright ban them has never been an issue in my eyes because our laws already largely prevent them from doing much.

Aside from the fact that our laws clash with this pretty heavily, I'm not sure I'm willing to support this in any form.

Bobberino:

Aside from the fact that our laws clash with this pretty heavily, I'm not sure I'm willing to support this in any form.

Click to expand...

You do realize that the point of this is to change our laws right?

This bill isn't one I support for the issues pointed out by others, but I do think a bill of some form is neccessary.

TlomzKrano:

Aside from the violations of various other parts of the legal code, what's the point?

When dealing with fascist, for every minute they exist, there is an exponentially increasing chance of them breaking a ban-able or kick-able rule. If they are so blatant, game mods will beat us to it most likely. Having to outright ban them has never been an issue in my eyes because our laws already largely prevent them from doing much.

Click to expand...

Sure. Most of them get banned eventually. But I would argue that it is not only infuriating, but a bad look for TNP when we let a nation with the word "Nazi" in their nation name sit around in our region for any length of time because they... haven't broken the rules yet? We're allowed to banject for recruitment, but not for fascism? What does our tolerance of them, however begrudging, say to an outsider looking in? Or more importantly, to the people who have suffered from the actions of racists and fascists, and have to share this space with them for indefinite lengths of time whenever they come along?

As for how we could make this legal, and safely reconcile the BoR with neccessary moderation of OOC issues- that's tricky and I'll admit I don't know how we could go about that. But something does need to change.

We have banned nations for being facist before its just not uniformly applied

Fiji basically summed up my views on this already. Opposed.

Interesting perspective from both sides of the spectrum, however I will abstain from this discussion, and leave it in the capable hands of my superiors who would know how to proceed in the best possible manner in regards to the enactment or change in TNP legislation.

I would concur with Nimarya.

I would also like to see an extension from just 'Nazis' but to any 'Terrorist' organisation as well.

In my experience in filing GHR's. I found NS Moderators were not consistent with their actions despite the same 'offences' being repeated by an obvious Alt were reported.

I won't comment on the broader debate about the BoR or whether this bill is desirable. I would note, however, that the list of protected categories should probably include "ethnicity".

This bill is unnessary and does nothing more then weaken the Bill of Rights and opens a way for a rouge delegate to do harm to the region before being called to account by the RA. As it exist, the issues that the bill reportedly seeks to address are already covered by the NationState's rules on Harassment and Flaming. This is a unnecessary change. If the author or others want to see a more heavy handed approach to these issues, they should share their concerns with the LGA and Delegate directly.

The NS rules are wrong to have no hate speech rules.

Dreadton:

does nothing more then weaken the Bill of Rights and opens a way for a rouge delegate to do harm to the region before being called to account by the RA.

Click to expand...

Do you really think that the RA wouldn’t be skeptical of someone using shaky accusations of hate speech as a ground to remove enemies?

Comfed:

The NS rules are wrong to have no hate speech rules.
Do you really think that the RA wouldn’t be skeptical of someone using shaky accusations of hate speech as a ground to remove enemies?

Click to expand...

If you read my statement I stated it just gives justification a rouge delegate can use "Before being called into account by the RA."

Nimarya:

This bill isn't one I support for the issues pointed out by others, but I do think a bill of some form is neccessary.



Sure. Most of them get banned eventually. But I would argue that it is not only infuriating, but a bad look for TNP when we let a nation with the word "Nazi" in their nation name sit around in our region for any length of time because they... haven't broken the rules yet? We're allowed to banject for recruitment, but not for fascism? What does our tolerance of them, however begrudging, say to an outsider looking in? Or more importantly, to the people who have suffered from the actions of racists and fascists, and have to share this space with them for indefinite lengths of time whenever they come along?

As for how we could make this legal, and safely reconcile the BoR with neccessary moderation of OOC issues- that's tricky and I'll admit I don't know how we could go about that. But something does need to change.

Click to expand...

I have some issues with your line of thinking here. For starters, we are the largest region in NS where nations are created every minute. Its inevitable that nations with questionable names will be created and very often banned by game mods before it ever works up our chain here. Anyone who is remotely familiar with NS understands that a GCR's community is indicative of their citizenry and not randoms that just happen to exist in their region. Such is the life of being a feeder.

I am rather uneasy at the concept of giving up rights for the sake of fighting fash and racists. Moreso, we already have rules preventing people from espousing racist, hateful, bigoted, etc views. If those people begin sharing those views, they will be removed either by our own admin or by game mods.

The NS rules are wrong to have no hate speech rules.

Click to expand...

Hate speech use and flaming rules largely fall under the same category, and mods are given wide authority to make judgement calls on whats against the rules. So specific hate speech rules could be rather redundant as its fairly impossible to espouse racist, hateful, bigoted, etc views without flaming or harrassing.

TlomzKrano:

I have some issues with your line of thinking here. For starters, we are the largest region in NS where nations are created every minute. Its inevitable that nations with questionable names will be created and very often banned by game mods before it ever works up our chain here. Anyone who is remotely familiar with NS understands that a GCR's community is indicative of their citizenry and not randoms that just happen to exist in their region. Such is the life of being a feeder.

I am rather uneasy at the concept of giving up rights for the sake of fighting fash and racists. Moreso, we already have rules preventing people from espousing racist, hateful, bigoted, etc views. If those people begin sharing those views, they will be removed either by our own admin or by game mods.


Hate speech use and flaming rules largely fall under the same category, and mods are given wide authority to make judgement calls on whats against the rules. So specific hate speech rules could be rather redundant as its fairly impossible to espouse racist, hateful, bigoted, etc views without flaming or harrassing.

Click to expand...

I remember vividly a case where, under your Delegacy, we encountered an openly fascist, racist nation- and could do nothing, because of your policy. That happened several times, and I have personally seen where TNP's evident reluctance to ban fascists raised eyebrows in other regions. From what I can remember of my time there, even a democratic region like Europeia does not hesitate to ban Nazis when they show up. TNP has no excuse.

Additionally, the notion that banning Nazis would be "giving up rights," is false. A well-known quote is relevant here: "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins." Your premise is that a fascist nation sitting in the region, prior to breaking site rules, does no harm. That isn't true. A fascist's right to have Nazi and pseudo-swastika imagery in their nation does not trump the right of Jews and homosexuals and other groups to exist freely without being forced to share a space with someone who intentionally advertises that they do not believe in their humanity and value, and would likely wish them harm.

As I said, this bill is not what we need. But we do need something to make clear our freedom to eject nations with blatant Nazi and fascist ties. I believe any such bill should be spelled out very clearly and be as specific as possible when defining what constitutes a fascist nation, so as to prevent abuse like others here have voiced concern about.

Nimarya:

I remember vividly a case where, under your Delegacy, we encountered an openly fascist, racist nation- and could do nothing, because of your policy. That happened several times, and I have personally seen where TNP's evident reluctance to ban fascists raised eyebrows in other regions. From what I can remember of my time there, even a democratic region like Europeia does not hesitate to ban Nazis when they show up. TNP has no excuse.

Click to expand...

(Citation needed)

If someone was espousing racist or bigoted views on our RMB, they would be eligible for an all expense paid trip to TRR, however NS mods most likely got to it first. If on our Discord, our mods are pretty good about making sure that stuff isn't tolerated. If their national motto or flag has some bigoted drivel, a GHR should handle that. We do not tolerate Nazis, never have, and never will. However if some nation has a questionable flag, but doesn't say anything on the RMB and doesn't interact on discord, there's not much that can be done nor should there really be much concern. Again, such is the life of the biggest feeder in the game where thousands of nations come and go. If someone was actively espousing hateful views, they would have been taken care of.

Additionally, the notion that banning Nazis would be "giving up rights," is false. A well-known quote is relevant here: "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins." Your premise is that a fascist nation sitting in the region, prior to breaking site rules, does no harm. That isn't true. A fascist's right to have Nazi and pseudo-swastika imagery in their nation does not trump the right of Jews and homosexuals and other groups to exist freely without being forced to share a space with someone who intentionally advertises that they do not believe in their humanity and value, and would likely wish them harm.

Click to expand...

I never asserted they have a right over any other group. However in these cases where racist or bigoted flags and mottos exist, a GHR is a much more effective way to deal with them. There is no need to begin making vague laws that allow the delegate to ban people for poorly defined parameters, especially when we have ways of dealing with bigotry and such when it shows itself on the RMB and in discord.

"would likely wish them harm" - If a nation is actively wishing you or anyone harm, report it immediately, that breaks site rules and would be banned pretty fast.

As for your quote, I would liken this concept more to the concept behind the patriot act of skirting the BoR to allow for ejections on a smaller subset of grounds, but so be it.

As I said, this bill is not what we need. But we do need something to make clear our freedom to eject nations with blatant Nazi and fascist ties. I believe any such bill should be spelled out very clearly and be as specific as possible when defining what constitutes a fascist nation, so as to prevent abuse like others here have voiced concern about.

Click to expand...

Our freedom? Are you speaking as MoD here or as a citizen?

"spelled out very clearly" - easier said than done

I don't think we should be making exceptions to the BoR for additional types of actions when Id argue they are largely already covered by NS site rules, that is an extremely dangerous game to play and the type of law that gets abused. If a single entity has a questionable flag or motto, but doesn't otherwise interact on the RMB or discord, it would be the logical equivalent of hunting for a needle in a haystack of 10k other nations who are coming and going. If you see something that has questionable imagery, file a GHR and see where the mods are on it. However, unless they are interacting on our RMB, telegramming, or on our discord, this seems like a non-issue as they obviously aren't a part of our community and it could be difficult to tell exactly what their beliefs are.

This is very on point for me, but I think it is important to consider. If TNP wishes to start making moral or value claims, then it has to have a cogent and explicit understanding of what it will and will not tolerate in its community. Things like fascism and transphobia for instance need to be formally defined so that someone who transgresses the rules are dealt with accordingly. Currently the active terms in the proposal are "offend or harass". Offense is entirely too subjective to be a measure of what is acceptable to say or not. Any person who holds an objective belief system is bound to offend someone else. Rather, we need to consider and define what ideology or discriminate behavior is in opposition to TNP's collective value system and so there is no longer any gray area for people to manipulate.

Let there be an objective framework that then informs our laws then there will be no confusion or uncertainty when the time comes to impart the ban.

@Comfed and @Peeps, I think the principle of this legislation is good. I do not think we should be willing to tolerate fascists or Nazis in the region regardless of what they have or have not done. The devil is in the details with this one. I think the direction to go is to focus on characteristics of nations that are problematic and not on the moderation of the RMB—that seems to be sufficiently broad currently. It's been pretty well-established that Nazi-theming is permissible in NationStates by the moderators; that should not be in the case in TNP.

I would urge you to ignore people attempting to distract from the core of the matter which is removing harmful nations from our community. Matters such as "how are we going to be able to find these nations" (obviously we deal with these nations when they are found) or "they will eventually break the rules" (why would we want to wait to get rid of problematic nations?) are just a distraction from what your actual intentions are.

Wonderess:

This is very on point for me, but I think it is important to consider. If TNP wishes to start making moral or value claims, then it has to have a cogent and explicit understanding of what it will and will not tolerate in its community. Things like fascism and transphobia for instance need to be formally defined so that someone who transgresses the rules are dealt with accordingly. Currently the active terms in the proposal are "offend or harass". Offense is entirely too subjective to be a measure of what is acceptable to say or not. Any person who holds an objective belief system is bound to offend someone else. Rather, we need to consider and define what ideology or discriminate behavior is in opposition to TNP's collective value system and so there is no longer any gray area for people to manipulate.

Let there be an objective framework that then informs our laws then there will be no confusion or uncertainty when the time comes to impart the ban.

Click to expand...

Good take from Wondo.

Further, any ability given to the delegate to ban nations purely on appearance and without any sort of behavior for reference (Praetor's comment) is concerning and should be very tightly regulated if it is to become law at all. Lest we open ourselves up for unchecked abuse.

Thanks for the feedback, all! The direction I hope to take this bill in is to very tightly regulate grounds for summary banjection. I have removed the reference to offending in this bill because I agree that it's highly subjective.