Post

Sanchee wrote:

Click to show...

I agree on nazis and fascists. Your experience with communist regions is not enough to have an embassy requirement prohibiting a large portion of the NS community. Many of our own citizens self-identify as communists. There are tons of communist regions that are perfectly fine, just as their are many "centrist" or liberal regions that are super toxic. I understand the use of extremist, but I think that it would be better to just limit out hateful ideologies. And i understand that it isn't legally binding but i think that sends a message to the interregional community about our region that isnt true. And why have a formal guideline if it doesn't matter?

I don't think I implied that it doesn't matter; it simply isn't binding, it isn't law. Which perhaps isn't relevant. The point is that it's essentially a matter of policy (something that isn't always 100%; policy can be malleable at times if it isn't perfectly enshrined in law). I understand what you're saying about the subjectivity of it, however.

How about this. Instead of blanket identifying ideologies that we don't want relations with, we just say toxic regions and investigate anyone who applies for embassies to see whether or not their community is toxic? If we do that, we can provide some justification for the rejection to said region when they apply. Is that too ambiguous?