01
Human Dignity
The person is not a metric, substrate, demographic resource, or expendable friction point. Editorial and program decisions begin with human standing.
PUBLIC STANDARDS
A rule that binds only the other side is not a standard.
These standards are designed to constrain the publisher, investigator, contributor, moderator, and institution—not merely the people they criticize.
STANDARD ZERO
No judgment of persons. No jurisdiction over minds.
No judgment whatsoever. The Ministry does not grade human worth, assign purity, diagnose dissent, score belief, classify a person as redeemable or disposable, or condition participation on an approved conclusion.
- No moral, spiritual, emotional, ideological, behavioral, or predictive score attached to a person.
- No compelled identity, confession, loyalty statement, worldview credential, or performance of agreement.
- No hidden profile used to rank access, visibility, credibility, belonging, or the right to reply.
- No machine output presented as a verdict on a human being.
- No disagreement treated as defect, danger, impurity, pathology, or disqualification.
- No correction process that requires submission to the institution’s worldview.
Evidence classifications remain descriptions of public records, not judgments of people. Total cognitive freedom is reciprocal: nobody may convert their freedom into custody over another person’s mind, privacy, body, records, speech, or ability to leave.
QUICK ANSWER
In one sentence
Twenty public standards governing dignity, non-designation, evidence, privacy, AI use, corrections, version history, appeal, Exit, and institutional accountability.
THE TWENTY
02
Non-Designation Policy
No living person, group, race, religion, nationality, political party, government, company, church, technology, or movement is designated as “the Antichrist.”
03
No Human Target Lists
Research may examine systems and public institutions. It does not publish target maps, harassment lists, or dossiers designed to expose people.
04
Nonviolence
The Ministry does not issue threats, endorse attacks, or publish operational guidance for violence.
05
No Doxxing
Do not publish private addresses, credentials, contact details, or sensitive personal information merely because it can be found.
06
Source Classification
Separate primary source, report, testimony, interpretation, doctrine, hypothesis, speculation, and unknown.
07
Claim Confidence
Use confidence labels when useful, but never let a label substitute for the underlying evidence.
08
Corrections
Fix broken facts visibly. Record consequential corrections, retractions, and supersession.
09
Version History
Do not silently rewrite meaningful claims until the past becomes unreconstructable.
10
Conflict of Interest
Disclose material relationships that could reasonably affect how a reader evaluates a claim.
11
Privacy
Collect the minimum information needed for the actual function. Do not build speculative dossiers.
12
AI Use
AI may assist drafting, comparison, extraction, or organization. Publication responsibility remains human, and the model is not evidence for external facts.
13
Archive Discipline
A digest proves exact bytes, not truth, authority, relevance, or success. Preserve provenance and reconstruction paths.
14
Right of Reply
Where serious factual claims concern identifiable institutions or public actors, seek relevant source-aware correction or response where feasible.
15
Personal Testimony
Label testimony as testimony. Experience matters without becoming automatic proof of every external explanation.
16
Opinion
Label institutional interpretation and contributor opinion so they do not impersonate reported fact.
17
Ministry vs Contributor
A contributor’s argument is not automatically a permanent Ministry position.
18
Appeal
Provide a visible path to contest factual findings, attribution, moderation, or correction handling.
19
Exit
Participation remains voluntary. Departure is not evidence of guilt or betrayal.
20
The Standard Applies to Us
Readers may use these rules to challenge the Ministry itself. A rule that binds only the other side is not a standard.
CLAIM CONFIDENCE
Use labels to expose limits, not to launder certainty.
CONFIRMEDWELL-SUPPORTEDPLAUSIBLEDISPUTEDSPECULATIVEUNKNOWN
The label should follow the evidence. It should never become a machine-generated badge that readers are expected to trust without seeing the source path.
AUDIT THE MINISTRY
Do not trust the standard because we wrote it. Use it.
- Can I find the source?
- Is the claim class visible?
- Were meaningful competing interpretations omitted?
- Does the page identify unknowns?
- Was unnecessary personal information published?
- Can I document a correction or appeal?
- Did the Ministry preserve a consequential revision?
- Would this rule still bind the Ministry if the roles were reversed?
THE COST OF ASKING
Inquiry can be formally permitted while institutionally expensive. The difference requires evidence, boundaries, and a reason trail.
Read How Institutions Punish QuestionsRELATED LIBRARY
Follow the question into the evidence-complete Library.
CONTINUE THE TEST