01-21-2026, 09:36 PM
So looking over the principals, A) does it need to be reframed as something with more permanence like a 'constitution', B) does it contain enough to NOT be gamed. The balance i was trying to create here is allowing enclaves their own form of operation, but adhering to the basic tenants for the framework. The framework needs to be non negotiable for some pieces, and it needs to not be prone to manipulation of what it says.
so possibly embedded as a new rule or #10 addition: 'No enclave may organize eligibility', governance, or resource access around immutable identity or belief systems. In essence, i think that it needs to be more explicit that you cannot use identity or personal belief as part of enclave management or policy.
Why it may need a new rule is because it isnt just about religion. What im envisioning happening here is 100 years down the road, you have 200 christian managed enclaves and 200 muslim managed enclaves. NO enclaves should be 'religion' based at all. It cannot be a primary decision maker
Another point to make here is that EVERYTHING written in this framework needs to be in as simple of terms as possible. I think language is often used as a gatekeeping device and i want to stay as far away from that as possible. The mechanics and policies that guide this framework need to be simple, legible, and easy to follow without a need to bring in a third party translator to interpret what its trying to say.
so for an additional rule, how about: Identity Neutrality of Organizational Power-No enclave, guild, or federated body may form, reproduce, govern, or persist in a way where shared identity (religious, ethnic, racial, cultural, or ideological) becomes the dominant determinant of participation, leadership, or operational continuity?
in practice, this could realiably be 3A audited by asking; do you have organizational roles that are ONLY being filled by specific identities? If that is true, is it due to the population of the enclave or is it because of control. Does this specific enclave scale for function or identity? Enclaves must be function first, identity as personal choice.
Example, Charismatic christian pastor is part of an enclave. They sit in a temporary leadership role within ops. During their tenure they want to try and adjust the local enclave rules to steer enclave policy into Christianity by at first skewing the rules slightly. Two years later, they are in the same position within enclave ops and again, steer the enclave policy towards christian beliefs. Over time this will lead to drift if left unchecked. The actual solution to this though is built into the auditing, and demonstrates the power of a system like this. During each tensure in ops of this pastor, as he made changes to the enclave policies, those changes are transparent to the public and to auditors in other enclaves. I believe that the changelog for these things need a tagging system, sort of like SEO. So if he made a change that moved the enclave into christianity, and tagged the change as 'functional, safety, care, ecological, etc' it would be visible that this does not consititute the changes being made as they do not fall into those specific categories.
so in other words, if their intent is to make an identity change, like - low hanging fruit here, towards same gender relationship ban, then tagged it as 'safety' in their process, the auditor would come in and see that, and flag it immediately as it is clearly NOT a safety issue.
I personally feel that sexual and gender role identities should not exist at all in terms of societal structures. Removing them altogether as a 'required' data point resolves a myriad of issues. So my thought was to make rule 12 possible amendments: No enclave, guild, or federated system may require, request, record, or rely upon an individual’s gender identity, sex, or sexual orientation for any civic, operational, educational, or participatory function. Disclosure of sex or gender related information is permitted only where strictly necessary for medical care, safety accommodation, or individual consent, and may not be retained beyond that context.
so possibly embedded as a new rule or #10 addition: 'No enclave may organize eligibility', governance, or resource access around immutable identity or belief systems. In essence, i think that it needs to be more explicit that you cannot use identity or personal belief as part of enclave management or policy.
Why it may need a new rule is because it isnt just about religion. What im envisioning happening here is 100 years down the road, you have 200 christian managed enclaves and 200 muslim managed enclaves. NO enclaves should be 'religion' based at all. It cannot be a primary decision maker
Another point to make here is that EVERYTHING written in this framework needs to be in as simple of terms as possible. I think language is often used as a gatekeeping device and i want to stay as far away from that as possible. The mechanics and policies that guide this framework need to be simple, legible, and easy to follow without a need to bring in a third party translator to interpret what its trying to say.
so for an additional rule, how about: Identity Neutrality of Organizational Power-No enclave, guild, or federated body may form, reproduce, govern, or persist in a way where shared identity (religious, ethnic, racial, cultural, or ideological) becomes the dominant determinant of participation, leadership, or operational continuity?
in practice, this could realiably be 3A audited by asking; do you have organizational roles that are ONLY being filled by specific identities? If that is true, is it due to the population of the enclave or is it because of control. Does this specific enclave scale for function or identity? Enclaves must be function first, identity as personal choice.
Example, Charismatic christian pastor is part of an enclave. They sit in a temporary leadership role within ops. During their tenure they want to try and adjust the local enclave rules to steer enclave policy into Christianity by at first skewing the rules slightly. Two years later, they are in the same position within enclave ops and again, steer the enclave policy towards christian beliefs. Over time this will lead to drift if left unchecked. The actual solution to this though is built into the auditing, and demonstrates the power of a system like this. During each tensure in ops of this pastor, as he made changes to the enclave policies, those changes are transparent to the public and to auditors in other enclaves. I believe that the changelog for these things need a tagging system, sort of like SEO. So if he made a change that moved the enclave into christianity, and tagged the change as 'functional, safety, care, ecological, etc' it would be visible that this does not consititute the changes being made as they do not fall into those specific categories.
so in other words, if their intent is to make an identity change, like - low hanging fruit here, towards same gender relationship ban, then tagged it as 'safety' in their process, the auditor would come in and see that, and flag it immediately as it is clearly NOT a safety issue.
I personally feel that sexual and gender role identities should not exist at all in terms of societal structures. Removing them altogether as a 'required' data point resolves a myriad of issues. So my thought was to make rule 12 possible amendments: No enclave, guild, or federated system may require, request, record, or rely upon an individual’s gender identity, sex, or sexual orientation for any civic, operational, educational, or participatory function. Disclosure of sex or gender related information is permitted only where strictly necessary for medical care, safety accommodation, or individual consent, and may not be retained beyond that context.