If a new government wants to change the results of the poll later, they should hold another democratic vote, not arbitrarily decide to change the laws on their own. Did you not read my post?
Formulating an updated constitution and laws
[redacted] is formulating a Plan to test this all as soon as the PXFC Results are in and after Tibby makes whatever announcement she has planned.
“The Truth is always found in the middle.”
I feel you haven't quite understood what I am trying to achieve here. Twitter and facebook have permanent rules and they always end up with the rules being the world view of the owner.
So how do we avoid that?
by me (the owner) handing over as much power to you (the Ximbo users) as we possibly can.
That means we should try to hand over as much power as possible to the democratically elected government ie you
Melpomene wrote: (original post HERE)
So how do we avoid that?
by me (the owner) handing over as much power to you (the Ximbo users) as we possibly can.
That means we should try to hand over as much power as possible to the democratically elected government ie you
Melpomene wrote: (original post HERE)
That means the elected government should make as many laws as possible at all times. Why? That makes no sense whatsoever. NO ONE on either side wants that. It will not results in a functional, working society. All communities operate with the...
The new government have just been voted in on their own merits and manifesto. So they can then do as they please ie hold a vote if they wish or just make changes as they wish right? Thats the right they will have earned
Melpomene wrote: (original post HERE)
Melpomene wrote: (original post HERE)
If a new government wants to change the results of the poll later, they should hold another democratic vote, not arbitrarily decide to change the laws on their own. Did you not read my post?
"...they always end up with the rules being the world view of the owner "
Correct, your lordship. I like where you are going here...
As many rules as possible and conversely...No Rules...but Guidance,
which is flexible and pliable based on the views of The "Owner" (MoJ, PB)
ex: various citizens try to "exploit" various areas of Ximboland in ways never anticipated by any set of Rules or Laws.
Correct, your lordship. I like where you are going here...
As many rules as possible and conversely...No Rules...but Guidance,
which is flexible and pliable based on the views of The "Owner" (MoJ, PB)
ex: various citizens try to "exploit" various areas of Ximboland in ways never anticipated by any set of Rules or Laws.
“The Truth is always found in the middle.”
SweetasNuts wrote: (original post HERE)
I feel you haven't quite understood what I am trying to achieve here. Twitter and facebook have permanent rules and they always end up with the rules being the world view of the owner. So how do we avoid that? by me (the owner) handing over as much...I appreciate your intentions and goal, but I feel like you are not understanding me. I'm advocating for democracy too: By electing a set of rules via a referendum, the resulting laws would represent the will of the people. The process would be democratic and also be a better representation of the expectations, and ideals of the population. These ideals might also change through time, which is why the process is renewable as needed. But it should not be renewed via an unchecked process by a singular person
The new government have just been voted in on their own merits and manifesto. So they can then do as they please ie hold a vote if they wish or just make changes as they wish right? Thats the right they will have earnedThe purpose of elected officials is to strive for positive change via forming new policies, and plans. The process is slow and precise for a reason. The checks and balances are in place to prevent the rise of tyrants and dictators. To ensure the government cannot discriminate.
We have three Committees in this new paradigm and they are all interesting and testable:
The Hierarchy from Top to bottom:
#1 - The Top Triad - SaN, MoD, MoC (only one agreeing vote needed)
#2 - MoJ alone (Katie)
#3 - PB + MoJ + Committee (Mel's discussion, poll, vote, majority rules conclave)
All have their entertainment value.
From what I see so far, the only "Law" (or lack of one) that seems to be front and center so far is
Pronouns
What does that say about Ximboland?
Regardless of what laws are imposed upon the populace
A current government can simply chose not to enforce them/it.
A complaint will have to be lodged by a paying Senator before any meeting of The Top Triad can take place.
The Top Triad will then, by a single yes vote of the three,
Compel the PB or MoJ to either ignore or enforce the Law under review.
I'm surprised that the Top Triad Members need not be unanimous in their decision.
Or at least need a majority (2-1) for sanctions to be ordered.
The Hierarchy from Top to bottom:
#1 - The Top Triad - SaN, MoD, MoC (only one agreeing vote needed)
#2 - MoJ alone (Katie)
#3 - PB + MoJ + Committee (Mel's discussion, poll, vote, majority rules conclave)
All have their entertainment value.
From what I see so far, the only "Law" (or lack of one) that seems to be front and center so far is
Pronouns
What does that say about Ximboland?
Regardless of what laws are imposed upon the populace
A current government can simply chose not to enforce them/it.
A complaint will have to be lodged by a paying Senator before any meeting of The Top Triad can take place.
The Top Triad will then, by a single yes vote of the three,
Compel the PB or MoJ to either ignore or enforce the Law under review.
I'm surprised that the Top Triad Members need not be unanimous in their decision.
Or at least need a majority (2-1) for sanctions to be ordered.
“The Truth is always found in the middle.”
My thoughts on laws that should be presidential/not flexible.
Violence
In my view, the depiction of realistic or graphic violence should be strictly prohibited, even under flexible legislation like that referenced by SweetasNuts. This includes any portrayal of real-world harm, injury, death, abuse, or violent acts involving people or animals. Such content should be universally off-limits, regardless of which government is in charge.
However, cartoon or comedic violence—when clearly fictional or exaggerated (e.g., Tom & Jerry, Looney Tunes, or cartoon memes)—should be treated differently. Most platforms I’ve encountered do not equate this type of content with real violence, provided it doesn’t promote hate or target real individuals or groups. In cases involving satire, playful banter, or exaggerated expressions not intended to harm, the Pink House may reasonably apply flexible judgment.
Adult Content
Graphic pornography, including explicit sexual acts and visible genitalia, should fall under non-negotiable, fixed legislation. It has no place on a broadly accessible public platform.
That said, erotic or suggestive content—such as sensual imagery, flirtatious roleplay, or artistic nudity—could be governed more flexibly, based on cultural standards or the preferences of the Pink House government in power at the time.
Abuse and Harassment
While I appreciate Ximboland’s commitment to diverse perspectives and the protection of speech, I have concerns with how the Pink House’s flexible legislation handles abuse and harassment.
Yes, context matters—not all seemingly harmful statements are made with malicious intent. But over-reliance on subjective judgment from the “government of the day” creates inconsistency. This uncertainty can blur the lines between acceptable dialogue and harmful behavior, allowing abuse to go unchecked in the name of free expression.
The notion that some administrations may tolerate abuse in favor of free speech is deeply problematic. We need clear, fixed baselines that protect individuals from targeted harm, regardless of who is in power. Free expression should not come at the cost of personal safety or dignity.
To protect the democratic spirit of the platform, Ximboland should adopt non-negotiable baseline standards, including:
No Targeted Harassment:
Repeated, intentional targeting of individuals with harmful content should never be acceptable—even if framed as a joke or critique.
Consent Is Essential:
Any content involving others in sexual, graphic, or personal ways must be consensual. There should be no ambiguity here.
Intent and Impact Both Matter:
Even if harm was not intended, if it causes real distress, moderation should apply.
No Incitement:
Content that incites harassment, doxxing, or harm—online or offline—should be clearly prohibited.
Cultural Sensitivity Is a Standard, Not a Suggestion:
Criticism of ideas is legitimate. Mockery of identity, race, religion, or trauma is not.
Space for Debate, Not Abuse:
Open dialogue should never include mocking someone’s appearance, identity, or pain. That’s not debate—it’s abuse.
Hateful Conduct
While I support free speech, I firmly oppose treating the use of slurs, harmful tropes, or hateful imagery as a matter of flexible interpretation.
These expressions—such as racial slurs, dehumanizing stereotypes, or Holocaust imagery—carry deep historical wounds. Their use isn’t just offensive; it causes real psychological harm, especially to marginalized communities. Allowing such content under the guise of “context” sends a dangerous message: that hate is negotiable depending on political winds.
Making hateful conduct flexible introduces inconsistency, undermines trust, and risks retraumatizing vulnerable users. What is tolerated under one government may be condemned by another, creating a volatile and unsafe environment.
Free expression should amplify voices, not shield the tools used to silence or dehumanize them. There's a vital distinction between controversial opinion and hate speech—one that should not shift with political leadership.
A healthy democratic platform is not one where “anything goes,” but one where all users feel safe enough to speak. That requires clear, consistent boundaries—not shifting standards based on power or interpretation.
Yes I think we are both broadly speaking the same language though I am unsure of the practicalities of your suggestion.
For me I agree with your sentiments about rules but i think YOU should be implementing them or more accurately the elected Ximbo. I mean teh government of teh day/you when you are Prime Ximbo eg setting your own set of sub-laws.
For example talking about laws and democracy - there are many areas of society and Ximboland where we cant agree eg violence. Some people may think we should allow violence because its newsworthy eg videos of helicopter crashes in the news or hooligans fighting. Some may say that we should not allow at all. I don't think we should define that in a constitution or in Presidential rules. That should be for you or more to decide. Now you can decide this however you wish - you can put it referendum after you have got to power or you cans imply assert that if you win the next election you will do such and such. Amnd thast one of your sub laws.
But I dongt think I should be putting that to referendum as a fixed law. Why ? Because
a) I dont think this law should be fixed - I think it should be flexible and open to change as per whichever government wins later down the line.
b) I want the President (me) to make as few decisions as possiible and you (the Ximbos) to make as many decisions as possible.
Why?
Because the we are fulfilling the noble cause of being the worlds first and only democratic social media site. And that means we are unique and special and offering something that no one has ever done before
Melpomene wrote: (original post HERE)
For me I agree with your sentiments about rules but i think YOU should be implementing them or more accurately the elected Ximbo. I mean teh government of teh day/you when you are Prime Ximbo eg setting your own set of sub-laws.
For example talking about laws and democracy - there are many areas of society and Ximboland where we cant agree eg violence. Some people may think we should allow violence because its newsworthy eg videos of helicopter crashes in the news or hooligans fighting. Some may say that we should not allow at all. I don't think we should define that in a constitution or in Presidential rules. That should be for you or more to decide. Now you can decide this however you wish - you can put it referendum after you have got to power or you cans imply assert that if you win the next election you will do such and such. Amnd thast one of your sub laws.
But I dongt think I should be putting that to referendum as a fixed law. Why ? Because
a) I dont think this law should be fixed - I think it should be flexible and open to change as per whichever government wins later down the line.
b) I want the President (me) to make as few decisions as possiible and you (the Ximbos) to make as many decisions as possible.
Why?
Because the we are fulfilling the noble cause of being the worlds first and only democratic social media site. And that means we are unique and special and offering something that no one has ever done before
Melpomene wrote: (original post HERE)
SweetasNuts wrote: (original post HERE)I feel you haven't quite understood what I am trying to achieve here. Twitter and facebook have permanent rules and they always end up with the rules being the world view of the owner. So how do we avoid that? ...
Well I am concerned that not all 3 will be online or able to make a decision quickly. So as long as one of them votes then thats fine. As for me I intend to let the elected or chosen government live and let live and not get involved at all. It would have to take a very clear and obvious breaking of the constitution and laws for me to get involved. i know how hard the MofJ and government position is and I want to support and stand by them
Slayyyocrates wrote: (original post HERE)
Slayyyocrates wrote: (original post HERE)
We have three Committees in this new paradigm and they are all interesting and testable: The Hierarchy from Top to bottom: #1 - The Top Triad - SaN, MoD, MoC (only one agreeing vote needed) #2 - MoJ alone (Katie) #3 - PB + MoJ + Committee (Mel's...
Ximboland stats
-
Population:
Prime Ximbo:
Treasury (USD): $0.00
Next Prime Ximbo election: 01.01.1970
Next State Minister elections: 01.01.1970
State in Charge:
Social media: | |
-
Best State Warriors this month:
nullplayer
- 2592261 points
Legal Alien - lvl 44
mbbybbby
- 555319 points
State Minister - lvl 258
CarCrashBimbo
- 343302 points
Citizen - lvl 54
Susan Slutzky
- 275409 points
Senator - lvl 257
Eunyce
- 272687 points
Fashion Manager - lvl 222
-
Sexiest this week:
Sandi Lut
- 15017 points
State Minister - lvl 288
AnastazjaNadia
- 11114 points
Citizen - lvl 264
lillyfee
- 10101 points
Citizen - lvl 180
Mizz Izzy
- 9241 points
Citizen - lvl 39
TokiKonoe
- 9147 points
Minister of Fashion - lvl 269
-
Most reputable this week:
Spiffyfunpants
- 3721 points
Senator - lvl 292
alroker666
- 1359 points
Senator - lvl 18
skramz
- 1349 points
Citizen - lvl 24
ActuallyAGuy360
- 1260 points
Citizen - lvl 13
Slick_D
- 1023 points
Citizen - lvl 105
-
Best fighters this week:
tibby
- 266 points
Minister of Entertainment - lvl 306
Spiffyfunpants
- 176 points
Senator - lvl 292
Eunyce
- 106 points
Fashion Manager - lvl 222
Slick_D
- 106 points
Citizen - lvl 105
BaddieMaddie
- 64 points
Citizen - lvl 250
-
Best debaters this week:
Pet Vicky
- 76 points
Citizen - lvl 251
AltAcc
- 76 points
Legal Alien - lvl 28
Eunyce
- 63 points
Fashion Manager - lvl 222
alroker666
- 50 points
Senator - lvl 18
Winchesters Girlie
- 31 points
Citizen - lvl 17
