@how, yes. I quote your statement undermentioned:
I cannot imagine speaking in the accusatory manner that you have (to another person) merely because that person has equated your partisan phrasal (which you desire that all participating here affirm, lest they be restricted from all participation otherwise) with that of fascists who conducted themselves similarly.
It should have demonstrated to you that assumptions might not be the most applicable course of action, yet you repeated this mistake.
I’ve no particular problem with your (plural, for the author(s)?) specification of undesirable behaviours and political affiliations, but that’s orthogranol to this specific discussion of whether its enforcement measures, as you’ve aforedescribed, would be reasonably considered to be authoritarian.
I don’t think it’s a very useful discussion regardless, though. In fact, I say that if a policy exists, it should be enforced. Otherwise, the problems with the policy shall never be understood, and the policy shall not improve. An example is the undermentioned criticism, which I agree with in its entirety:
Though, on that note, I have a suggestion regarding your proposal. In it, you state that accounts which disagree with it shall be terminated:
I estimate that this refers to permanent deletion of their account. Instead, I suggest that like those who merely have not (yet) agreed, their accounts should merely be suspended unless they decide to agree.
There’s no reason to prevent them changing their mind later. In fact, I find that convincing people to change their mind is easier when you provide easy avenues to do so. Removing all of their account’s activity would be a way to ensure that that is impossible, which would be a shame.
Does that mean that this is done by instance moderators, instead of users? I presume that the ignore function still works on remote users in its stead?