Join the new world

It had its uses in ancient times, (I guess..), as some kind of 'baddy' forum mask. With the removal of the forum-system, it in essence has degraded into unnecessary text that could barely be enforced (i.e ''banned from Congress'' is not even remotely possible). One could argue for the power of a symbolic statement, but that is far in the past as well seeing that all 'recent' (the few there were since 2015) blacklisting attempts were politically-motivated and based on trumped-up charges (and not in the interest of excluding dangerous people from society) so apparently there is no need for it.

One can always think of exceptions of course.. A ''rogue'' CP, for example. Begs the question what this paper tiger would do against that except pointing fingers without much consequence, while in practice other ways would be found to deal with the aftermath of such behaviour.

... And nevertheless Congress always has the freedom to propose motions, if the desire is there to act / make a statement on individual events!

There are both other in-game and out-game methods, how to deal with "rogue CP" or "rogue government member"... all while during Congress elections, almost all candidates, that apply, get inand therefore can vote on important issues, blacklisted or not.

I have always opposed blacklists, as they only cause divisions and conflicts in community, instead of benefitting the nation. Here, the blacklist made sense for me only to write down potential Congressional debtors to the State. With that problem solved, Blacklist is not needed anymore.

"Banned from Congress" was never fully possible. But it did mean:
- PPs put those people in the lowest spots if they would run for Congress.
- PPs would never set these people as CP candidates
- The government had an excuse to advise people against voting parties where this did not happen correctly.
- If elected these people were not allowed to participate in forum votes (would now translate to message votes), or see private Congress discussions (would now translate to not being included in such messages.

So just like back then in principle it is still possible to have such a blacklist, and (just like back then) partially enforce it...

The main question of this debate should be who should ever get on that blacklist. Presumably the clearest category is rogue CMs and CPs. For CMs that would be mainly immigration-based.

I had a long reply, before I accidentally pressed F5.

Either way, as I have stated in the defence of my proposal, Blacklist does not work.

- It can only be enforced partially
- In instances, where it should have been used, it has not been used.
- In instances, where it should not have been used, it has been attempted to use by malicious Congress Members with attempt on political intrigues.

Therefore the question of "Who should be on Blacklist" is irrelevant, if the "Blacklist" itself is faulty mechanic.

@Janty F: The blacklist is a means of simplifying motions against politicians who intentionally harm eNL by abusing their office's powers. If you remove the blacklist, motions of a similar effect can still be used in instances where it shouldn't be used etc...

The question is whether we want to simplify the lawbook and complicate rare instances of motions, or whether we want to keep such motions simple and have a mostly unused section in our lawbook.

"The blacklist is a means of simplifying motions against politicians who intentionally harm eNL by abusing their office's powers"

... I have to disagree with that definition itself, nowhere it is said it incudes politicans only.

Either way, Blacklist on its own complicates things, if used thoroughly. Hence why it is not being used, and rare instances of citizens (NOT politicians only) harming the nation are solved via actual democratic means, instead of a vague criminal list, that does not really do much in practice. All while we have occasional pointless blacklist votes, because one CM wanted to bully his colleague.

So still see no point or advantage of Blacklist.

It isn't necessarily restricted to politicians, but that's the only group of people for which the consequences matter... So I think it's fair to say it is intended for "evil" politicians.

Aside from not paying Congress tax, the most common way to get blacklisted is facilitating illegal immigration. So if you want to remove the blacklist, it's probably necessary to simultaneously or first change the SCI protocol.

I think illegal immigration is the category that Jacen was referring to when he said blacklist attempts were voted down.

Janty had a long reply. Huh, go figure. 😃

" the most common way to get blacklisted is facilitating illegal immigration"

As far as the current description of historical Blacklist goes, the "most common way" happened once, in 2014. What I hope Jacen.Solo is talking about, is the recent political scandal, where multi accounts were heavily involved to push party into TOP5 and get it to the Congress. THAT seems to me ten times more "evil" in terms of causing harm to our democratic system. However even for such a serious act of harm, nobody even bothered to think about starting a blacklist vote, as it would have little to none effect anyway 🙂 .

Abusing multies should be something the admins deal with. There is an in-game punishment for it, i.e. that is a crime so serious that we as Congress should not need to bother with it anymore because a higher authority already does.

Things which are allowed in-game, such as PTOs, and are yet undesirable for eNL is precisely what our own lawbook is for. And for this specific case, I believe the blacklist is still the best we can do...

Of course, such blacklist votes can be downvoted if no harm was done, and it was an accident (lack of knowledge). And having an empty blacklist is actually a good thing...

I don't recall anyone ever having being blacklisted for ''PTO'', Djirtsdew. That is, taking over power by means like inviting foreigners or multies. In such a case one would be hard-pressed to find the effectiveness of a blacklisting.

If you are referring to the extremely rare occurrences in which people have been blacklisted over (suspected) theft while in an official position: For every such instances there are numerous unnecessary started blacklisting procedures that only serve as a political weapon. I can only think of like three occurrences that were legitimate AND had - some - effect (and even that is highly discussable).

Considering the rarity of it all and furthermore the abundance of abuse of the mechanism shown numerous times, why not remove it? If the situation is grave enough, Congress can still make up a motion; they are after all the supreme representation in eNL with the powers to do so. And which we also did before there was ever something like a ''blacklist'' or ''Persona Non Grata'' in place (and yes, we managed fine without it, whilst still punishing people that trespassed). Just like we don't have a Law in place either for the procedure of building a Commune, for example, but do it by individual Motion.

@NoTie112:
A PTO is achieved by accepting lots of foreigners into a small country through immigration. Once a critical mass of foreigners has entered they cannot be prevented from entering Congress and letting in more, after which they can reach a majority in a country, and take over entirely.

The thing we blacklist for are the initial stages, where the first dangerous foreigners are let in without government approval. That is the time when a PTO can still be effectively halted. And in such a case both the illegally accepted foreigner and the one accepting him were typically blacklisted, to try and keep them out of Congress.
And even these early stages may require shrinking our Congress size, etc. to lower the risks of these people getting into Congress despite measures being taken...

If not for PTOs, the entire SCI (protocol) would be nonsense. So imho, as long as no better alternative punishment for enabling illegal immigration has been found, the blacklist still serves its goal...


Regarding abuse of the Blacklist: the votes have a 2/3 majority requirement for that reason. It is almost impossible to really put somebody on the Blacklist unless there is a very good reason to. So the only abuse that is really possible is nonsense votes on the topic of blacklisting people. Just like with a MoNC...

The thing is you are referring to something that is exclusively part of the in-game mechanics we can't control. Once someone has a seat in Congress (almost impossible to avoid) he can accept whoever he likes, blacklist and not. And such a person likely does not care about being put on a list or being excluded from PMs. Only the actions of parties (trying to have not such people in Congress) and Government (limiting Congress size) would then be effective, not symbolic, matters.

I'm surprised you find the SCI protocol useless, unless there is a punishment connected to it. That would mean that almost all our laws are considered useless, seeing that most just put down procedural rules without associated punishments for not following them. In case someone is deemed to be trespassing, whether it is regarding immigration or something else, Congress is still free to make a motion. And one would be naive to believe that solely the inclusion of ''blacklist'' in the protocol makes ill-meaning people shy away. So what difference does it make - what real effect does the blacklisting have -, except for serving as ''nonsense votes'', as you allude to?

Admitting that even if individual is put on Blacklist, additional measures still need to be implemented to actually prevent blacklisted individual to not get political rights, only prove, what I have written in defense of my proposal. A piece of paper means nothing, if other tools can be, and are, used in order to achieve the goal, which that piece of paper wants to achieve, but is actually unable to do so.

If someone truly displays such a bad intent, him being on Blacklist does not change a single thing in reality.Assuming the IF, as the fearmongering displayed in the debate about dangers present, does not really transfer into the actual situation.

There have been several instances were a blacklist should have passed, but due to party/personal loyalty above loyalty to the country it didn't.

And several cases where such a process should not even have been started. In other words, it doesn't work.

Most recent one is probably feynmann that should have been blacklisted but wasn't.

There is nowhere stated that a blacklisting procedure has to result in it passing (similar to an impeachment-procedure in RL). Congress is free to judge the individual incident - as is their task - and decide whether or not it is opportune to hand out the punishment. In the case of Feynmann, Congress judged that it is not worth to exclude a sparse member from our society in such a manner given the circumstances (no ill intent, doing something that would have occurred eventually anyway, first error). Nevertheless, a reprimand had been given to him for the taken action.

That has honestly nothing to do with ''party politics'' or ''personal loyalties'', but Members of Congress having a good look and acting in the (perceived) interest of NL. You make it look worse as it is, but we as collective society are not ones to engage in such toxicity. Same for the example when odan was brought up for blacklisting in which Congress (prematurely) decided it is not in the interest of anyone or NL:

https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-debate-blacklisting-congress-member-odan-based-on-racism-2705565 *

* Ironically a good example of blacklist procedures being so.. abusable and a weaponized form of politics. Many more such examples can be given, though they are stashed away somewhere in the dead Forum database.

Disproving the decisions of Congress, the highest legislative body in this nation, claiming for them to be wrong.

What more there is to say - these are the type of people, who want Blacklist to exist.

I'm also wondering what these ''instances'' are and who from the Dutch society it entails. Now it is just an empty argument. Please elaborate.

To be honest, I think he talks about his own party...

I doubt any blacklist would work pointing out to the game mechanics.

It worked perfectly fine for almost a decade. But as my colleague pointed out party politics is nowadays coming into it to disrupt rightful blacklistings. If people put the country first instead of loyalty to friends/ party we would have had multiple people on there at the moment.

Again, answer for your accusations and do your job as Congressman: What persons would be on the list and excluded from society?

Ironic that is is you who is speaking of party politics and ''country first'', considering the stubborn refusal of any proposal (no matter the content, or the interest for NL) by the entirety of I&W. You are rather extremely obstructive of the good of eNL, than to play along with the rest of our citizens. All because you are slighted by a few individuals and the course of NL (that objectively has been in the interest of NL for the most part).

So please stop this with this facade: No one buys it and certainly the ballot box does not.

" If people put the country first instead of loyalty to friends/ party we would have had multiple people on there at the moment." If you are looking at the voting record from the in game proposals etc, from what you and your party has done did the opposite from putting the country first 😉

See - these void empty threats are exactly, what I mean by saying:

"I have always opposed blacklists, as they only cause divisions and conflicts in community, instead of benefitting the nation."

and

"All while Blacklist itself has only become an institution for occasional political infighting, where political opponents could be locked away"

Frankly, I am happy these Congress members played their act and came to the debate to confirm my words. I thought they will silently try to hide their motives, to prove me wrong.

In all these years the blacklist only had some form of power on forum, that had a forced upon us form of power itself, yet had nothing to do with the game itself. It had its use for the odan's and an occasional other player however never had any power in-game. Thankfully forum is abandoned so the blacklist, therefore, seems useless. Even for the odan's.

There is however one exception I can think off: If a player did harm to eNL and by that I mean real harm, it could be used as a means to remember not letting him in again. For that it can have it's use. I can think of very few that would fit that description. And they never were on the list if I recall correct. That sai😛 Most people change, athough we have daily examples of a player not changing, at least not for the best, so if we don't recall their actions maybe it's time to forget. Which is how the automatic removal from the blacklist works as well so removing the law itself makes no difference.

So, as the ones that really harmed eNL were never on it and the ones that were on it were never actually proven guilty of the crimes they were accused of the instrument was purely political, failed and can be removed.

The only real reason to use the blacklist is in cases where politicians seriously harm eNL by intentionally assisting in illegal immigration, or in some other way. The evidence also should be crystal clear.

If we are ever threatened by a PTO in the future we probably will take very similar measures as we did in the past with the blacklist. But it can be done through motions (with a 50% majority), instead of the blacklist (with a 67% supermajority).