Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Lam Erin · Post by **Lam Erin** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:01 pm

I am posting here the draft legislation on the grievance committee which Cadence and I prepared.The purpose of this Committee is to facilitate the resolution of disputes between citizens. Its purpose it at a first level to bring the parties in dispute to a forum of neutral persons who will seek first,, an amicable resolution to the dispute, by asking the parties to negotiate between themselves and with the mediation of the Committee a resolution in their dispute. If this doesnot work, then the Committee will take control of the case and will make recommendations to the parties for the way the dispute should be resolved.
The Committee will have no power to impose sanctions on the parties and will only issue warnings to the parties. However failure to comply with the warnings of the Committee will result in a referral to the Scientific Council for the imposition of sanctions to the party at fault.

More details about the Committee are presented below. For any comments please post here to facilitate a public dialogue on the issue. You can also contact me or Cadence Theas for discussion or proposals.The issue has been around for more than 2 months and during that period we had the opportunity to discuss it with many fellow citizens and get their feedback, which was incorporated in the draft. Now we are seeking participation from those who did not express opinion yet or the final comments of those who already expressed some opinions.

The plan is to present the draft for approval in one of the next sessions of RA.

Grievance Committee: Proposal by Cadence Theas and Lam Erin

Jurisdiction:
The Committee will have jurisdiction to deal with the resolution of all conflicts between all cds citizens. This includes CDS government members when they are involved in private disputes (disputes unrelated to the exercise of their duties as members of the government).

The Committee will seek the amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties in dispute and will make recommendations, adopt decisions (whose legal significance will be explained below) or issue warnings only if the parties fail to agree to an amicable resolution between themselves.

Powers of the Committee:
The Committee will not be a court, which means that it will have no authority to impose a ban on CDS citizens or other sanctions. However its decisions, recommendations and warnings will have to be respected by the parties in the dispute.

Failure to comply with the Committee's decisions, recommendations or warnings could result in a referral by the Committee of the case to The Scientific Council for the imposition of banishment (temporary or permanent) or other sanction.

In case of referral to the SC the latter will not reconsider the merits of the case but only the appropriate penalty for non-compliance.

Membership

The body of the Committee will be comprised of 5 members approved by the Representative Assembly (RA). Any CDS citizen will be eligible to apply by submitting an application to RA. The application should explain clearly why the applicant is capable of appointment. The decisions on the appointments will be based on candidate's qualifications and experience of conflict resolution. Lawyers, teachers, managers, psychologists, police officers, individuals with experience of managing human relations or of involvement in disciplinary bodies (professional or other) is an indicative list of qualified individuals. All cases will be considered and RA will decide on the basis of grounds of qualification and experience. RA will also consult the Scientific Council on the suitability of the candidates.

Current members of CDS government (the Chancellor, RA members or members of the Scientific Council) cannot be appointed. However, members of SC may be asked to join the Committee in case the latter is unable to form a full panel to hear a case (see below).

The Committee should have at least 1 and preferably 2 members appointed from new cds citizens (meaning citizens who have been in CDS for less than 1 year at the time of their appointment). This will help to make the committee more inclusive and will help incorporate new CDS citizens.

Term

Committee members will be appointed for 6 months. The appointments are individual meaning that the 6 months will be measured for each member separately. The term for each member can be extended for another 6 months by RA. Extension can be given if there are no candidates to replace the member of the Committee leaving office or if the RA is satisfied with the performance of the the current member in the Committee.

Further extension will be possible only in exceptional circumstances if there are no candidates to replace the member/s of the Committee leaving office or if RA is satisfied that the member performs an exceptionally good job in the Committee.
A member who completed the term and left the role may be reappointed in no less than 6 months after their departure from office. This will be possible if there are no other candidates to fill the role and/or if the returning member was successful in their previous term in office. The relevant decision will be made by RA.

Procedure

One member of the Committee will be appointed as duty judge. Duty judges will be appointed on rotational basis for 2 weeks each, from the members of the Committee. The SC will have the responsibility of publishing the list of duty judges.

A duty judge will serve as the first point of contact in case a complaint or request for conflict resolution is launched. Individuals wishing to complain against other individuals or parties in dispute wishing to ask the assistance of the Committee will have to contact the duty judge to state the facts of their case and provide the evidence. The duty judge will advise the complainant or the parties in dispute on the procedures and on the evidence the Committee will need in order to consider their case.
In case of individual complaint, the duty judge will contact the individual/s against the whom the complaint has been made and will ask them to submit their own evidence. The duty Judge will not contact the latter party if the evidence provided by the complainant is deemed very poor and therefore inadequate.

The duty judge would consult other committee members before acting.

Following the collection of the evidence by the parties the Committee will meet without the parties to discuss if there is a case to hear. The relevant panel will comprise 3 of the 5 members of the Committee. Those will be appointed according to the rotation: the panel will comprise the current duty judge, the previous and the next duty judge according to the rotation.

The parties will have the right to ask for exclusion of one committee member each (for bias, personal interest in the case or other reason). In the latter case the two remaining Committee members will be appointed in the panel., Members of the Committee can also voluntarily ask to be excluded from the hearing of the case for the same reasons.

In case, following the exclusions or for other reasons, the Committee is unable to find 3 members to deal with the case it will ask the SC to send one or more of its members to fill the panel.

The Committee panel hearing the case will be chaired by the duty judge who was contacted by the parties and who collected the evidence. This judge will also be responsible for handling the communication with the parties on behalf of the Committee. The parties are prohibited from contacting directly the other panel members on issues related to their case. All communications with the Committee panel have to take place through the panel Chair.

Following the collection of the evidence by the duty judge the Committee will make an initial assessment of the case. If they think the evidence is weak and inadequate will reject the case. If not they will arrange a hearing where the parties will be asked to be present. CDS citizens are welcome to attend the hearing, which must be public (unless the parties point to specific reasons for which the hearing has to be private and the Committee accepts those reasons)..

Decisions, recommendation and warnings

The Committee will hear the parties and will seek a resolution to the dispute which is based on the evidence and fair taking into account also the need to maintain peace in the Community and protect the CDS constitution, its laws and the community standards.

If the parties can offer their own mutually agreed resolution to their dispute, the Committee will accept that resolution provided that it does not violate CDS laws and the constitution.

The Commission decision does not have to allocate blame to either of the parties. The Commission cannot impose sanctions on the parties but will recommend a course of conduct or action plan which the parties will have to follow, in order to restore peace in the community and the relationship between the parties.

The Commission will warn the parties that failure to comply with its recommendation or with the settlement agreed by the parties would result in them (or the part breaching the decision/agreement) being referred to the SC for imposition of sanctions.

Any breach of the Commission decisions, recommendations or warnings should be reported to the panel that made the decision. The panel will issue a second and final warning on the party or the parties to comply. Failure to comply with the second warning will result in automatic referral to the SC. for the imposition of sanctions on the individual breaching the warning.

Who can apply for resolution of the conflict

Eligible to apply to the Committee for conflict resolution are the parties involved in the dispute, injured third parties and the CDS government (The Chancellor, RA or SC) in case the conflict has broader community impact.

Appeals

Appeal against the Committee decisions to the SC are allowed only on the following grounds:
1.Procedural failures (e.g the Committee did not consider evidence provided by the appellant or did not invite the appellant to the hearing)
2. Bias or conflicts of interest: in case Committee member/s who heard the case was biased or had a personal interest in the outcome of the case.

No other grounds of appeal are allowed.

Failure to attend the hearing is not an acceptable reason for an appeal. The Committee should work with the parties to ensure that the hearing takes place at a date and time suitable for the parties.
If a party in the dispute is unable to attend the hearing they should inform the duty judge in advance and ask for rescheduling of the hearing. Failure to do so will result in the hearing taking place without this party. The Committee will still make a decision in this case and will use the evidence already sent to the Committee by that party.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:58 am

This is a dreadful proposal and needs to be rejected immediately in its entirety. Let's save ourselves some time and the associated drama and refrain from indulging in 'The Judiciary Act' part 2.

Summary:
This is unnecessary. It won't work. It's been drafted in a vacuum. It is authoritarian. It is a recipe for further conflict.

Detail:

This is unnecessary.
The stated purpose is to 'facilitate the resolution of disputes between citizens'. This is unnecessary in Second Life and this kind of body cannot achieve its aims in any case. If you have a problem with someone, mute them, ban them from your land, ignore them. No one is forced to interact with others when we have tools such as 'mute' and 'ban' to hand. Beyond that we have to tolerate people we don't like or leave. No one is forced to stay in the CDS. As for the kind of backbiting, rumours, gossip and general trolling that some of our citizens engage in - grow up. That's the way some people choose to behave, you can't legislate for good behaviour. If people breach the ToR, we have the Abuse Report system. What is this body supposed to be dealing with which the AR system can't cope with?

It won't work.
The proposal is silent on powers to compel parties to provide evidence. So what happens if someone accuses me of racially abusing them in IM and I refuse to hand over the chat logs? The disputes in this community are childish manifestations of 'he said, she said'. There is no sensible way to intervene here except to advise people to make up, or if they can't, to avoid each other. Frankly, I don't believe anyone in this community has the right to tell me how to behave and how to interact with other people. So, set this up by all means but I won't be answering any calls to appear before some kangaroo court. I would encourage non-compliance with this kind of nonsense.

It's been drafted in a vacuum.
Who has this been discussed with? There have been no in world meetings to get input from a broad group of citizens. The idea has been knocking around for a while but now we suddenly have a full proposal for a committee which, if you ignore it, could get you banned and there has been minimal public debate about the idea. This is like the Judiciary Act all over again except this time we have two people rather than just one developing a proposal without sufficient community input.

It is authoritarian.
Here is a phrase to chill the blood - "The Committee will not be a court, which means that it will have no authority to impose a ban on CDS citizens or other sanctions. However its decisions, recommendations and warnings will have to be respected by the parties in the dispute." What does 'respected' mean? Obeyed? Who judges whether parties have been sufficiently respectful? The fact that you then say the Scientific Council is not allowed to consider the merits of the case but then could impose a ban (!) or 'other sanctions' is a horrendous denial of due process. If this Grievance Committee is packed with Cleo and her merry gang of trolls then I want the SC to be a last line of defence against the mean-spirited invention of disputes to drive people out which will ensue.

It is a recipe for further conflict.
We have been here before folks. We wasted a year debating the Judiciary Act, passing it and then having to hastily repeal it when we saw what a monster we had created. We are about to repeat the mistake if we are not careful. There's even a reference to the need for 'qualifications' to sit on the Grievance Committee. Remember how that worked out last time? Ashcroft got to appoint himself as Chief Judge for Life and set exams for others to join him!

Do we really want every petty dispute between people to become the focus of attention of this kind of committee? And do we really believe that disputes can be resolved in this way? It is naive to believe that people will accept that they are in the wrong because some random group of fellow citizens gave them a telling off.

I appreciate the fact that Lam and Cadence have put some considerable effort into this and the motivations are clearly sincere. But not every idea is a good idea and one thing I've learned in my time in the CDS is that it is better to say "this wont' fly" loudly and clearly rather than trying to make bad ideas work and wasting everyone's time e.g. Franchulates (looooong time ago), the Judiciary Act, the merger with Al Andalus. We have mute and ban. We have 'Abuse Report' and we have the SC. We don't need a grievance committee.

Cadence Theas · Post by **Cadence Theas** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:44 am

Hi Pat,

I wanted to clarify a couple of points you made and to talk about the process up to the proposal that appears here, and what is next. I posted the original proposal a couple of months ago and immediately started receiving comments and suggestions. In the RA it was decided to pursue the idea further, and Tor, Lam and I were asked to write a formal proposal for the RA to consider. The document that appears in this thread is only a draft proposal, and it is intended to go to a consultative process with the CDS citizenry both here in the forum as well as at in-world meetings that Tor is going to organize. Only after it has gone through exhaustive consultation will the proposal go to the RA for final consideration. Clearly, if the overwhelming sentiment is against the idea even in modification, the RA would have to reconsider its viability.

In this regard your comments are helpful and allow us to anticipate what some of the objections might be (although maybe "dreadful" was a bit harsh ). It also allows us to think about possible topics for the in-world meetings, so thank you for being the first to comment here.

To clarify another point, the proposal was not conceived nor written in a vacuum, we did consult (obviously not everyone, unfortunately) other people to help us with some of the ideas that appear here, but at no time did we think that the proposal could go to the RA without prior consultation with all of CDS.

Un abrazo,

Cadence

Cadence Theas · Post by **Cadence Theas** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:49 am

Hi Pat (again),

I reread your posting and wanted to make one other comment. CDS is an experiment in virtual democracy, and as such is a very special place in SL. By becoming members we tacitly accept the fact that we are bound by the unique rules of the CDS, above and beyond what the TOS and other jurisdictions maintain. For example, I am completely against the LA process so far and have made my inconformity known in the forum and in an act of civil disobedience, but when LA is done, I, as a citizen of CDS have to accept it because it went through a due process identified in the CDS legislation. If I don’t agree with the legislation or due process then I go through the procedures to see if it can be changed. If it can’t and I still want to be here, I have to abide by what becomes the status quo.

The purpose of the proposal is to offer a social level of sanction to co-living in a virtual environment that would have a certain degree of autonomy and address more the question of social issues before they become juridical ones. Our hope is that the tacit acceptance of the CDS legislation by being members is sufficient motivation to allow a committee like this help improve social relations in CDS without resorting to the childish sorts of behavior that you so correctly identify.

Un abrazo,

Cadence

Garnet Psaltery · Post by **Garnet Psaltery** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:03 am

I'll tell you now that I shall ignore any such petty body.

Cadence Theas · Post by **Cadence Theas** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:37 am

Hi Garnet,

Can you offer a constructive reason as to why you view it as petty and ignorable?

Cadence

Garnet Psaltery · Post by **Garnet Psaltery** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:09 pm

Pat said it all better than I can. I agree with what he said.

Website · Post by **Tor Karlsvalt** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:27 pm

I will chair the first of several public meetings to discuss this proposal tomorrow, 23 Feb 2014, at 8 AM at the Docks in Colonia Nova.

The SLURL is: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/C ... /52/104/22

All are welcome.

Lam Erin · Post by **Lam Erin** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:18 am

Pat,
My detailed answers to your points below:

1. It is unnecessary.

There is no group, community, organisation, etc which does not have some rules of behaviour which members of the group have to follow and which does not provide for some conflict resolution. In SL all groups set by Landowners, businessmen, RP or other groups have some rules. Some are written and detailed, some are unwritten. Usually the conflict resolution in most cases is the responsibility of the owner who usually imposes a solution (after hearing the parties or not) and those who are not complying are just kicked out of the group and banned from the land. In some cases there is not even warning or previous discussion. You are just kicked out.
CDS has been a rare case where the owner (the cds community) has no method of dealing with member conflicts whereas the banishment option is used very rarely almost exclusively for griefers.
The Committee comes to fill a vacuum and serves a dual purpose: a. to help the citizens resolve their disputes; b. to protect the other innocent citizens and CDS as a whole from the often unreasonable behaviour of conflicting parties, which in many occasions use the CDS forum, CDS events and every other opportunity to drag CDS in their personal conflict.
I agree that people should resolve their disputes on their own. If they do so there is no need to use the Committee. There is also no need to use the Committee if the conflicting parties wish to continue with their conflict and they keep it private or outside CDS. Then the Committee has no role. The Committee has a role if the personal conflict between two citizens escalates to a level that drags the rest of the community to it. For example if the conflicting parties use the CDS forum or events to accuse each other or ask other CDS citizens to join them on their side…Or if one or both the conflicting parties want a resolution but do not know how to reach it because they cant agree to the terms of it.
Summing up:
a. The Committee has no role if:
(i) The conflicting parties have their own resolution to the dispute
(ii) The conflicting parties keep their conflict private or outside CDS

b. The Committee has a role if:
(i) The personal conflict has escalated to a level that has involved parts or the rest of CDS community.
(ii) One or both of the conflicting parties request the Committee’s assistance to resolve the conflict.

2. It won’t work.
On the issue of the evidence. The role of the Community is not to allocate blame or to impose punishment. What it needs to establish is the existence of conflict, which the parties do not wish or are unable to resolve. A conflict is easy to prove. You don’t need evidence of IMs, which are private conversations. You can use the behaviour in the Community, evidence of public conversations (e.g. in CDS events, meetings etc) or on the forum. If communications take place through IMs it is the responsibility of the parties to stop it by muting the opponent. The Committee could recommend that..
I agree that nobody has the right to tell a citizen how to behave but this is the case only if the behaviour does not cause problems to others. This is standard practice everywhere both inworld and out of it. If the behaviour of a citizen causes problems to others then the others will have the right to tell you to stop that behaviour. That’s common sense.

3.It was drafted in a vacuum.
This is not the case. The proposal was originally made by Cadence back in November. I agreed with it and wished to participate in the drafting. The case was presented in RA as our proposal and RA approved the creation of a committee including the two of us and Tor as Chair to help prepare the draft legislation, which then would be offered for public consultation for amendments-proposals. This is the stage we are at. By the way many citizens already offered their input but of course we want the participation of as many as possible. Any constructive proposals will be taken into account and where appropriate the proposal will be amended.

4. It is authoritarian
The Committee will not be allocating blame or punish people. It will only be making recommendations on how to resolve the dispute. These recommendations, opinions etc will have to be respected. Compliance may be a better word. Our idea is that the parties cannot ignore the recommendations because then there is no need to have a Committee whose recommendation will be ignored.
There is no denial of the due process for the following reason:
The provision that “Failure to comply with the Committee's decisions, recommendations or warnings could result in a referral by the Committee of the case to The Scientific Council for the imposition of banishment (temporary or permanent) or other sanction”, in the Powers section should be read in conjunction with the section on appeals where it is stated that:
“Appeal against the Committee decisions to the SC are allowed only on the following grounds:
1.Procedural failures (e.g the Committee did not consider evidence provided by the appellant or did not invite the appellant to the hearing)
2. Bias or conflicts of interest: in case Committee member/s who heard the case was biased or had a personal interest in the outcome of the case.

No other grounds of appeal are allowed”.
These read together mean the following:
(i) The parties have the right to appeal to SC on the grounds mentioned: procedural failures, bias or conflicts of interest. Then, if accepted, the SC will make any decision it deems fit.
(ii) The provision which you referred to will apply when there is no Appeal by the parties or the Appeal was rejected by SC.
In these two cases the Committee decision stands and failure of the parties to comply with it will mean imposition of banishment (temporary or permanent) by SC.
I can make this clearer by amending the draft if need be.
Also it is not possible to have a Committee packed by opponents as you imply. First because all the Committee members will be approved by the RA. Unless RA is controlled by a specific faction, it is difficult to see how your claim can prove true. But even if RA is controlled by a hostile faction you have two options available
a. You can ask the exclusion from the case of a Committee member on bias grounds or for conflict of interest.
b. If you believe that the whole committee is biased or has an interest in adopting a hostile and unfair decision you can use the appeal, which is allowed on those grounds and bring the case to SC.

5, It is a recipe for further conflict.
I know that in the past efforts were made to create a judiciary and failed for various reasons. Here we try to keep it simple and incorporate it into the CDS existing structures ensuring adequate checks and balances.

There will be no Chief judge (only a Judge who will chair the hearing who will probably be different each time on the basis of the rotation), there will be appeal options to SC to ensure that the Committee decisions are not biased or pursue hidden personal or other interests, whereas RA will be making the appointments. For even more guarantees I can add a provision that RA could terminate prematurely the term of a Committee member if there is evidence of personal bias or conflict of interest in his decisions. There will be no exams or anything else and there are no hidden agendas.
The whole reason that motivated us to propose this was because certain personal conflicts between CDS citizens escalated to such a level that the whole community was dragged to them. public events were destroyed by these conflicts and the rest of the CS citizens found often themselves in the unpleasant situation to have to watch two or more people trading insults and accusations against each other without anybody doing anything to stop this ugly situation, which damages the image of cds and makes living in cds often unbearable.
I am sure that over the years many good citizens of cds left the Community because of the unbearable situation caused by a few hotheads who treat CDS as their personal property and who show no respect to the need of the rest of the Community to live in peace.
As I say in the beginning of this post, there is no group or community that does not have some way of dealing with such disputes. In one way or another these groups act to have the conflict resolve. Only in CDS maybe you see a whole community sitting on the sidelines watching their citizens fighting.
In any case democracy without some form of judiciary does not exist. Where you have legislature and executive you also have judiciary. CDS has SC but SC alone will be overwhelmed if it had to deal also with personal conflicts. Also it is better to have two levels of litigation to ensure if need be the case is double-checked which ensures for transparency and reliability in the decisions.

Victor1 · Post by **Victor1** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:42 am

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit - Necessity of proof is with the person who lays charges.

So...

Person 1 - Complains to the Grievance Committee that someone has sullied their name by saying they have been trolling them and wrongfully accusing them of chat harrasement in CDS.

Person 2 - The person who has said that person 1 has been trolling in chat in the SL client in CDS.

The two parties are hauled infront of the Grievance Committee. Person 1 gives the Committee forum posts where Person 2 has stated that people visiting their plot in CDS has been sent nasty IM's by Person 1, or friends of Person 1. Committee see's this NECESSITY of proof from Person 1 in the forum. These posts clearly see Person 2 laying the accusation.

Necessity of proof has been met, the Committee can see that there is a case here.

Onus Probandi - Burden of proof.

Committee now asks Person 2, who has accused Person 1 of chat harassment to back up claims of this harassment which they have posted in the forum. Person 2 can decide to do the following things...

1: Provide a notecard of chat logs... which would get them an AR

2: Provide a screenshot inworld of said chat...which would get them an AR

The only other way around this is to post said logs or screenshots onto a blog, or give an email address to the Committee which would be the "grey area" which Linden Lab ToS cannot cover. However that way around it has been argued by Lam in another forum post that it breaks the Digital Privacy Act (even though technically it doesn't).

Receiving said chat log or viewing said log...the lab wont really do much about that. However if the same 3rd party hosted chat log was then used as a decisive means to impose an IN WORLD penalty of some sort against a person that's in that chat log? Thats a whole different matter altogether, thats when the Lab itself WILL step in.

Now the committee can decide to refuse to look at chat logs, which means Person 2 has no way to provide burden of proof. Or the committee can decide to look at said chat logs, but the second they do... they will not be able to rule against person 1 anyway because if they do rule against person 1, then person 1 is within their right to file an abuse report.

Either way... NECESSITY of proof by Person 1 can be met, BURDEN of proof by Person 2 cant be met... committee rule in favor of person 1, person 2 gets punished because they cant provide proof since the second they do Person 1 can become AR happy.

Sorry, this whole thing is a mess, it also looks like one huge set up.

Cadence Theas · Post by **Cadence Theas** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:00 am

Hi Vic,

It might be helpful if you chose words more carefully, the proposal is not a “set up”, rather a serious attempt at making CDS a little more livable, the forum a little more civil, and the CDS society more empowered collectively.

Instead of discrediting the idea from the start, we can use your suggestions and Pat’s suggestions as a beginning to strengthen the proposal. There are clearly some problems that have to be addressed, the one you mention about evidence being perhaps the most problematic, but I don’t think they are insurmountable. I know we have differences about the efficacy of the democracy in CDS, but I also think that if we don’t start doing something about it, all of us, be it the proposal for the committee or more rigid forum guidelines or a leadership that promotes reconciliation, the essential nature of CDS, the thing that does make it unique, is in danger.

I want to extend an invitation, a specific and directed invitation to you and Pat to not only identify the conceptual and procedural breaches in the proposal, but to also help us think of ways of correcting them. I truly do not think that you both, you and Pat, like the status quo. I know I come to CDS sometimes dreading who is going to be inworld, and this is not a healthy situation. If, through the committee we can make CDS better, then these discussions, heated passioned or otherwise, are worth it. If the proposal of the committee is not the answer, then help us to think of a mechanism within the legislative boundaries of CDS that is.

Anyways, thanks for the comments.

There is a first public meeting this morning, Sunday February 23. Unfortunately, I don’t think I will be able to attend, but please attend if you can.

Cadence

Lam Erin · Post by **Lam Erin** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:24 am

Vic,

As I stressed above, the purpose of the Committee is to provide conflict resolution not to allocate guilt or to punish people. This is why it is not court in the full sense.Conflict resolution in this context means to stop the conflict.

As the things stand and without any third party intervening the situation withe the conflict you describe will continue being like this:
side 1 will continue to accuse in each and every opportunity side 2 of libel (lets say) and side 2 will continue to accuse side 1 of harassment. And then the whole cds will have to deal with the conflict of the two sides which will be continuing and never ending.
The two sides will be repeating their allegations in public events, to other citizens and so forth. For a third party wishing to join CDS or who is new in cds or is a cds citizen who has no involvement in the conflict do you think this conflict will make a positive impact?
Do you think that any of the conflicting parties will gain anything by continuing this?

I seriously doubt. I am sure if you ask third parties watching these conflicts, most of them will tell you that they are sick and tired of them especially if the conflicts are prolonged.
Common sense requires at least someone to do something to stop the chaos and anarchy.

On the issue of the chat logs, many groups in sl could accept use of chat logs and resolve conflicts on the basis of the logs regardless of consent.Others wont.
My view, which is personal, is that when there is a conflict of this nature both parties should consent to the use of the logs to help bring up the truth.If they dont then there are two options in the committee:
1. If the offence took place in public, in the presence of third parties, the Committee can ask those parties to testify as witnesses. Obviously the person which recorded the conversation and sent it to the person-victim of the offence could appear in the Committee and confirm the event (without having to use logs). Then the burden shifts back to the other side which will then be under pressure to either produce the logs or bring its own witnesses.
2. If the offence takes place through IMs that's a personal issue and it does not concern the CDS. IM conversations are protected by LL TOS but harassment through IMs can be easily stopped by muting the perpetrator.

By the way and from experience in SL,I am telling you that using chat logs does not always produce the desired outcome. The interpretation of words or phrases used in the logs is not always easy or widely agreed.Also isolating and using (or misusing) parts of conversation is not sufficient to prove the case.
I have been group owner with thousands of members where in some occasions I received in a notecard complaints supported by chat or IM logs showing inappropriate behaviour by specific persons. When I contacted those persons and asked them what happened, I was usually told that these persons had available logs from other conversations or covering a different part of the original conversation which proved a different story.

In some other cases where the authenticity of the original conversation was confirmed and not disputed by the parties, which had no problem considering the logs, there was disagreement on the interpretation of the words or the behaviour. A harassment, or libel or stalking (or whatever else is claimed) is not such, just because one side says so.Others may have different interpretation. And if multiple logs from multiple conversations are produced and you look at them as a whole (which is what you have to do to determine the nature of the conflict) then again different conclusions may be reached.

In any case the role of the Committee is not to allocate blame but to stop conflict meaning to propose ways so that parties will not continue fighting. Even if the parties do not want to give up fighting, they will have to do so at least publicly, in the interest of the rest of the Community.

The outcome of the case could be for example, the Committee to recommend to the parties to abstain from direct communication or hostile acts in cds territories.Or to both abstain from CDS events or the forum or to propose some steps to facilitate reconciliation.

I think this is a useful function.

Finally there is no "set up". It cant be. Whoever is appointed in the Committee as member will be selected by RA. Members with personal interest in the case or who are biased (for example have a personal conflict with either of the parties) will not be sitting in the panel hearing it or if they sit in it, this is a reason for an appeal to the Scientific Council, a different body, which will then make the decision.
If someone doesnt trust the members of the Committee to do the right thing, then they should trust the Scientific Council.

If they dont trust either body or the RA selecting the Committee members, then honestly there is no reason for those persons to be in CDS. They can go to their own sim or set up their own group where they can do what they want.

In any case the existence of a Committee trying to help resolve personal conflicts without placing blame is I believe a "luxury" to the citizens of CDS. The alternative is what most SL groups do: they have the owner making whatever decision they think fit based on their personal, often arbitrary interpretation, of events. Usually in those groups conflict resolution takes the form of the owner pressing, without much discussion, the eject button and placing the parties (or one of the parties) in the ban list.

In CDS there is currently a third way available: to let the conflicting parties continue fighting for as long as they wish; to let them drag innocent other citizens or even the cds government into their dispute; and to let them through the conflict damage the image of CDS and alienate those who are here to have some relaxed and peaceful time.

Is this acceptable? We can ask the citizens what they want but I dont believe the majority enjoys watching these ugly dog fights.
The existence of a Committee could help reduce those incidents, which I believe will be in the interest of all.

Website · Post by **Tor Karlsvalt** » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:51 pm

This meeting was held at Colonia Nova on 23 Feb, 2014 from 8 AM to 10 AM SLT. The transcript follows:

[07:58] Lam Erin: hello all
[07:58] Ludo Merit: Hi Lam
[07:58] Lam Erin: Hi Ludo
[07:58] Spider22997 Upshaw: where do we sit tor at thee table or closer
[07:58] Tor Karlsvalt: Hi Lam
[07:58] Spider22997 Upshaw: helo everyone
[07:58] Tor Karlsvalt: in the circle on the cubes
[07:59] Tor Karlsvalt: Well you can on the tables too.
[07:59] Ludo Merit: I'd rather be in the circle
[07:59] Pip Torok entered draw distance (224.50 m).
[07:59] Pip Torok is online.
[07:59] Penelope Gossamer is online.
[08:00] Tor Karlsvalt: I think the slides came out ok.
[08:00] Pat (patroklus.murakami) is online.
[08:00] Spider22997 Upshaw: yes very nice
[08:00] Pat (patroklus.murakami) entered draw distance (35.56 m).
[08:00] Pip Torok entered chat range (8.62 m).
[08:00] Lam Erin: i am still rezzing
[08:01] Spider22997 Upshaw: how many people in the past that were citizens have been asked to leave
[08:01] Callipygian Christensen is online.
[08:01] Pat (patroklus.murakami) entered chat range (17.92 m).
[08:01] Spider22997 Upshaw: cds
[08:01] Tor Karlsvalt: I think only Ulrika
[08:01] Pat (patroklus.murakami): hi all
[08:01] Spider22997 Upshaw: oh one
[08:01] Pip Torok: hi ...
[08:01] Spider22997 Upshaw: hey pat
[08:02] Lam Erin: Hi Pat and Pip :)p:)
[08:02] Tor Karlsvalt: fyi, you can change your animation by clicking on the shaddow.
[08:02] Spider22997 Upshaw: nice seats
[08:03] Tor Karlsvalt: ok it is 8am
[08:03] Callipygian Christensen entered chat range (19.27 m).
[08:03] Penelope Gossamer entered draw distance (21.86 m).
[08:03] Tor Karlsvalt: let me just send a notice
[08:03] Penelope Gossamer entered chat range (19.31 m).
[08:03] Tor Karlsvalt: in chat I think.
[08:04] Lam Erin: hi Calli and Penelope
[08:04] Penelope Gossamer: Hi Lam .. hello all :
[08:04] Soro (soro.dagostino) entered chat range (16.66 m).
[08:04] Soro (soro.dagostino) left chat range.
[08:05] Penelope Gossamer: Can we sit anywhere?
[08:05] Lam Erin: Hello Soro, good morning
[08:05] Rosie Gray entered chat range (2.50 m).
[08:06] Shep (shep.titian) entered chat range (2.54 m).
[08:06] Lam Erin: Hi Rosie
[08:06] Spider22997 Upshaw: hi
[08:07] Lam Erin: Hi Shep
[08:07] Tor Karlsvalt: Ok good
[08:07] Tor Karlsvalt: FYI, click on the shadow to change your animation.
[08:07] Rosie Gray: hi everyone
[08:07] Tor Karlsvalt: Lets begin.
[08:07] Soro (soro.dagostino) entered chat range (19.99 m).
[08:08] Tor Karlsvalt: The meeting is transcripted and will be posted to the forum.
[08:08] Tor Karlsvalt: The box contains the NH sent in the Notice.
[08:08] Tor Karlsvalt: There is a link to the forum site on the nc.
[08:09] Tor Karlsvalt: here it is tho.
[08:09] Tor Karlsvalt: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4321
[08:09] Lam Erin: Hello Soro
[08:09] Tor Karlsvalt: I have the proposal on the prims to my left
[08:09] Tor Karlsvalt: First I would like to invite Lam to say a few words regarding the proposal.
[08:09] Tor Karlsvalt: Lam
[08:10] Lam Erin: OK thank you
[08:10] Lam Erin: Tor.
[08:11] Lam Erin: The basic idea behind this proposal is to establish in CDS a forum for resolving or helping to resolve private disputes.
[08:12] Lam Erin: It is aimed particularly at resolving or helping to resolve those disputes, which the involved parties are unable to keep private
[08:13] Lam Erin: and bring them in the open often dragging other citizens or the cds in disputes which are primarily private.
[08:14] Lam Erin: as things stand all that cds can do when facing lets say a disruption of a public event by two parties fighting each other is just sit and watch
[08:15] Lam Erin: and hope that the parties at some point will manage to control themselves and behave
[08:15] Soro (soro.dagostino): Hello all, i was off to warm coffee.
[08:15] Lam Erin: which though is not always the case
[08:15] Lam Erin: we see personal disputes lasting for weeks or months
[08:15] Lam Erin: forum threads to be opened exactly for this purpose
[08:16] Lam Erin: public CDS events such as RA meetings
[08:16] Lam Erin: to be disrupted or even cancelled at the end by individuals which are using public fora to resolve their issues
[08:17] Lam Erin: We believe and think many others share that view that as a community we need to do something about it
[08:17] Lam Erin: so as to protect the rest of the community from troubles that don’t concern themselves
[08:18] Lam Erin: and also to help where appropriate the parties to resolve their disputes.
[08:18] Lam Erin: So this is a proposal for setting up a body whose role would be exactly that.
[08:19] Lam Erin: I will stop here as this is enough to explain the rationale behind this proposal.
[08:19] Tor Karlsvalt: Thank you Lam
[08:19] Lam Erin: we can discuss the details in the process.
[08:19] Tor Karlsvalt: So Lam has presented his view as to why we need a grievance committee.
[08:20] Tor Karlsvalt: I think we should stay on this question first before we go into the mechanics of the plan.
[08:20] Tor Karlsvalt: Anyone want to address this issue of need?
[08:20] Spider22997 Upshaw: spider raises hand
[08:20] Pip Torok: yes ....
[08:21] Tor Karlsvalt: spider
[08:21] Spider22997 Upshaw: in the last year how many disputes have there beeen
[08:21] Pip Torok: first our presence here in such numbers is proof enough of the need
[08:21] Soro (soro.dagostino) raises hand
[08:21] Spider22997 Upshaw: and who currently handdles these disputes
[08:21] Spider22997 Upshaw: done
[08:21] Pip Torok: (sorry spider)
[08:22] Ravelli Ormstein is offline.
[08:22] Tor Karlsvalt: thakns
[08:22] Tor Karlsvalt: anyone else?
[08:22] Tor Karlsvalt: Ludo?
[08:22] Pip Torok raises hand
[08:22] Rosie Gray raises hand
[08:22] Tor Karlsvalt: Ludo then Pip
[08:22] Tor Karlsvalt: then Rosie
[08:22] Shep (shep.titian): Soro raised a hand
[08:22] Soro (soro.dagostino) raises hand again
[08:23] Pat (patroklus.murakami) raises hand
[08:23] Tor Karlsvalt: then soro
[08:23] Tor Karlsvalt: and shep
[08:23] Ludo Merit: Most of what I want to say has to do with what we need. I agree with Lam that the voice of sweet reason is greatly needed here
[08:23] Ludo Merit: done
[08:23] Tor Karlsvalt: ok
[08:23] Shep (shep.titian): lol no thanks
[08:23] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Ludo
[08:23] Tor Karlsvalt: PIp?
[08:23] Shep (shep.titian): but Soro was next
[08:23] Shep (shep.titian): I'll shut up
[08:23] Soro (soro.dagostino): Yield to Pip
[08:24] Rosie Gray notes that actually Pip, then herself were next, then Soro
[08:24] Pip Torok: another point is that the "grievance" is usually ongoing between 2 individuals n ever wholly right or wrong and shd be approached in that manner done
[08:24] Tor Karlsvalt: thakns pip
[08:24] Tor Karlsvalt: rosie?
[08:24] Tor Karlsvalt: soro next
[08:24] Tor Karlsvalt: then patroklus
[08:25] Callipygian Christensen raises her hand
[08:25] Rosie Gray: thanks... I'm just wondering who would be choosing the 5 members who would make up the committee
[08:25] Rosie Gray: done
[08:25] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks rosie, I think we will discuss mechanics soon.
[08:25] Tor Karlsvalt: Soro?
[08:25] Tor Karlsvalt: then Patroklus
[08:26] Soro (soro.dagostino): In the real world, many local governments have such programs.
[08:26] Soro (soro.dagostino): I have worked them over my years as a lawyer in RL.
[08:26] Soro (soro.dagostino): Nieghborhood Mediation Programs.
[08:27] Soro (soro.dagostino): Very successful in toning down disputes between individuals.
[08:27] Soro (soro.dagostino): done.
[08:27] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Soro
[08:27] Spider22997 Upshaw: spider raises hand
[08:27] Tor Karlsvalt: Pat?
[08:27] Tor Karlsvalt: then Spider22997
[08:27] Pat (patroklus.murakami): thx
[08:27] Pat (patroklus.murakami): i think it's a dreadful idea. let's kill it now while we have teh chance
[08:28] Pat (patroklus.murakami): 'history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy the second time as farce'
[08:28] Pat (patroklus.murakami): this is the judiciary act all over again
[08:29] Pat (patroklus.murakami): there is no need for this. use ban, mute and ignore ppl you don' like. use AR if they break the Tos
[08:29] Rosie Gray raises hand
[08:29] Pat (patroklus.murakami): what is this for? what will be covered? can i challenge homophobia on the forums or will i have to accept the judgement of some kanagaroo court?
[08:29] Pat (patroklus.murakami): for now, done
[08:30] Spider22997 Upshaw: in mediation programs i have been involved in the mediators were not connected to the ones in conflict, in othr words no cdds citizen would be meadiator
[08:30] Tor Karlsvalt: Thanks patroklus
[08:30] Tor Karlsvalt: Spider?
[08:30] Pat (patroklus.murakami) thinks spiders point is *highly* relevant!
[08:30] Spider22997 Upshaw: it would not be fair to have citizens in judgment
[08:30] Spider22997 Upshaw: done
[08:30] Lam Erin (raises hand to speak after rosie)
[08:30] Blakkee (blakkee) is offline.
[08:31] Tor Karlsvalt: Thanks spidder. Rosie?
[08:31] Tor Karlsvalt: then Lam
[08:31] Rosie Gray: thanks... well I was a bit surprised to see what the proposal came out like, because it does sound more like a court than I had thought it would be
[08:31] Rosie Gray: I thought it would be more mediation
[08:31] Soro (soro.dagostino) raises hand
[08:32] Rosie Gray: I have to agree that it might be very hard to find someone in the CDS who hasn't some kind of relationship with whomever the people involved in dispute might be
[08:32] Rosie Gray: done
[08:32] Pat (patroklus.murakami) raises hand
[08:32] Tor Karlsvalt: Thanks Rosie
[08:32] Spider22997 Upshaw: spider raises hand
[08:33] Tor Karlsvalt: before lam speaks liet me inform you that Ludo will be passing a proposal out
[08:34] Lam Erin: should I wait or speak tor?
[08:35] Tor Karlsvalt: sorry lam.
[08:35] Tor Karlsvalt: no go ahead
[08:35] Callipygian Christensen coughs politely and waves her hand a bit
[08:35] Lam Erin: ok...Two points from me....One on points that Pat made one on Rosie's point about the nature of the committee.
[08:35] Tor Karlsvalt: Lam, then Soro then Spider.
[08:35] Savannah Coronet-Jacques (savannah.coronet) is offline.
[08:35] Tor Karlsvalt: And then Callie
[08:35] Lam Erin: my first comment is to look in your profile
[08:35] Lam Erin: you are allowed to have 42 groups..
[08:35] Ludo Merit raises hand to speak when we are discussing what is needed rather than whether anything is needed.
[08:36] Lam Erin: look at the groups...
[08:36] Lam Erin: is there any groups that doesntsome rules
[08:36] Lam Erin: and where the individual members can do what they want
[08:36] Lam Erin: fight each other if need be
[08:37] Lam Erin: go into group chats disturbing the rest of the group
[08:37] Lam Erin: without anybody doing anything about it?
[08:37] Lam Erin: I don’t think there is such a group
[08:37] Lam Erin: All group have some conflict resolution mechanism
[08:38] Lam Erin: which people don’t see because it s controlled by the owner
[08:38] Lam Erin: who usually issues warning or just bans summarily the troublemakers
[08:38] Lam Erin: we don’t want that
[08:38] Lam Erin: as it is not the tradition of the cds
[08:39] Lam Erin: but we should nt allow cds to be used as a battleground for private individuals wishing to resolve their disputes in this way.
[08:40] Lam Erin: if there is a better way I am happy to consider that and even support it.but in my personal view something should be done.
[08:40] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Lam, Soro?
[08:40] Lam Erin: on the second point raised by Rosie
[08:40] Lam Erin: one more quickly tor
[08:40] Tor Karlsvalt: sorry lam
[08:40] Tor Karlsvalt: I miss read your done.
[08:40] Lam Erin: mediation is based completely on voluntary participation
[08:41] Soro (soro.dagostino): The view should be mediation vs Adjudication.
[08:41] Soro (soro.dagostino): The mediator's job is seek agreement.
[08:41] Lam Erin: which means that that in order for this to work both parties need to agree
[08:41] Lam Erin: i agree soro
[08:41] Soro (soro.dagostino): Not to decide who is right.
[08:42] Lam Erin: but the problem in CDS is that no party in a dispute will go there.....
[08:42] Rosie Gray: hmmmm
[08:42] Lam Erin: some have already said that they don’t want to go to any such body
[08:42] Lam Erin: or if one party wants to go and he other refuses
[08:42] Lam Erin: it wont work
[08:43] Tor Karlsvalt: Just a reminder that I stopped Lam too quickly then Soro then Spider then Callie
[08:43] Lam Erin: so the fighting can go on
[08:43] Lam Erin: I thought carefully
[08:43] Lam Erin: and I suggest a mixed system
[08:43] Lam Erin: trying to combine as many possibilities as possible
[08:43] Lam Erin: for example
[08:43] Lam Erin: if the parties who will g to the Committee
[08:44] Lam Erin: propose their own solution
[08:44] Lam Erin: the Committee will accept that
[08:44] Lam Erin: it is also stated that the Committee
[08:44] Lam Erin: does not allocate blame
[08:44] Lam Erin: or punish anybody
[08:45] Lam Erin: what the committee would offer as a solution may be for example
[08:45] Tor Karlsvalt: Reminds all of us that we all will need a turn at speaking
[08:45] Lam Erin: the two parties to abstain from hostile behavior for a specified period
[08:45] Lam Erin: or to avoid direct communication for a specified period.
[08:46] Lam Erin: closing I am saying
[08:47] Lam Erin: that we only added the teeth of citizens obligation to comply as a way to give some meaningful role in the committee and to ensure that the people involved are not wasting their time and that the Committeee produces something useful to the cds
[08:47] Lam Erin: done.
[08:47] Tor Karlsvalt: Thanks Lam
[08:47] Tor Karlsvalt: Soro?
[08:47] Tor Karlsvalt: Then Spider followed by Callie
[08:47] Lam Erin: (sorry for the length but these were important points)
[08:47] Soro (soro.dagostino): I said what I wanted . . . Mediation not arbitration
[08:48] Pat (patroklus.murakami) coughs 'hope i've not been forgotten?'
[08:48] Tor Karlsvalt: Pat after Callie
[08:49] Pip Torok: (I don't think so, Pat!:)
[08:49] Pat (patroklus.murakami):
[08:49] Tor Karlsvalt: soro if you are done, then Spider22997
[08:49] Tor Karlsvalt: spider?
[08:49] Spider22997 Upshaw: the mediator would not be connected to cds in any way, no citizen here should judge another, and as much as goes on here there is much bad feelings between some citizens and if you want a mediation committee it should be outside of CDS just as it is in real life and you would pay them from the general fund in RL mediation it us usually an attorney that you pay to mediate, one that is knowledgeable of the law, i see it as wrong to have one citizen judge another
[08:49] Tor Karlsvalt:
[08:50] Spider22997 Upshaw: done
[08:50] Tor Karlsvalt: Thank you Spider. That is a novel idea
[08:50] Tor Karlsvalt: Callie? Then Patroklus
[08:50] Soro (soro.dagostino) raises hand --
[08:50] Callipygian Christensen: thank you.
[08:50] Pip Torok: I didnt catch what spider said!
[08:50] Callipygian Christensen: First, I support the concept of having some form of dispute resolution available and have long felt it is not the role of the SC to act as the teacher in a schoolyard settling squabbles
[08:51] Tor Karlsvalt: Then Soro following Patroklus
[08:51] Callipygian Christensen: That said however, the current draft is totally unconstitutional - the SC, in my opinion, cannot banish or punish based on the findings of a group that are not basing those findings on the laws, constitution etc. I would expect the other SC members would have similar thoughts.
[08:51] Callipygian Christensen: I also have concerns about various wording etc within the draft, but that constitutional issue pretty much trumps them for now. Unless the actions being 'punished' are clearly defined in the laws etc. I can't see the SC accepting this, even if the RA does. As Pat points out, this borders on, if not fully is, a judicial 'court', one that has no oversight. While I would like to see some form of dispute resolution, it would need to be very different from what is presented here.
[08:51] Callipygian Christensen: done
[08:52] Lam Erin raises hand
[08:52] Tor Karlsvalt: Thank you Callie
[08:52] Tor Karlsvalt: Pat?
[08:52] Tor Karlsvalt: then Soro
[08:52] Pat (patroklus.murakami): i posted on the original proposal back in december
there has been no further discussion on the forum until this rather well-developed proposal was put forward
i disagree with every design decision!
this is compulsory not voluntary
this is arbitration not mediation because a case can be brought by anyone who is 'affected' by the dispute. you can be made to take part against your will. it starts as voluntary mediation then becomes compulsory arbitration if both parties don't play ball.
in other words its an authoritarian muddle
and this is to be carried out by amateurs not professionals
and, to back it up, you can be banned from the CDS if you don't 'respect' i.e. 'obey' the rulings of the grievance committee
it is an assault on our freedom as CDS citizens and will have a chilling effect on free speech
we have the tools to deal with conflict already
let's use them instead of repeating the mistakes of the ill-fated judiciary act
[08:52] Pat (patroklus.murakami): done
[08:52] Callipygian Christensen: is AFK for a bit eating breakfast
[08:52] Lam Erin raises hand
[08:53] Tor Karlsvalt: Thanks Pat,
[08:53] Tor Karlsvalt: Soro then Lam
[08:53] Tor Karlsvalt: Soro?
[08:53] Ludo Merit raises hand
[08:53] Soro (soro.dagostino): The system should be voluntary
[08:53] Tor Karlsvalt: Ludo after Lam
[08:54] Soro (soro.dagostino): Mediation -- with no "judgmental elements"
[08:54] Soro (soro.dagostino): Done.
[08:54] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Soro
[08:54] Tor Karlsvalt: Lam?
[08:54] Tor Karlsvalt: Then Ludo
[08:54] Lam Erin: ok
[08:55] Lam Erin: on the constitutionality which is important
[08:55] Lam Erin: the parties to the dispute are given right to appeal to the SC
[08:55] Lam Erin: so the SC can hear the case on appeal if need be
[08:56] Rosie Gray raises hand
[08:56] Lam Erin: The only case where the SC will accept the decision of a committeee
[08:56] Lam Erin: will be if
[08:56] Lam Erin: there is no appeal and the parties faile to do what they agreed or asked to do by the committee
[08:57] Lam Erin: or if the SC rejects the appeal
[08:57] Lam Erin: decisions of arbitration and eve mediation
[08:57] Lam Erin: are accepted by the Courts in real life
[08:57] Lam Erin: i don’t see why they shouldn’t be accepted in second life
[08:57] Tor Karlsvalt: After Lam, then Ludo then Rosie
[08:58] Lam Erin: on the issue whether
[08:58] Lam Erin: it should be a mediation or arbitration
[08:58] Lam Erin: i would be happy personally to accept mediation
[08:58] Lam Erin: if someone could give me an answer on how to deal with the following scenario
[08:59] Lam Erin: where two people disrupt social and other CDS events
[08:59] Spider22997 Upshaw: spider raises hand
[08:59] Lam Erin: cause problems to other citizens and to CDS as a whole
[08:59] Tor Karlsvalt: Spider after Lam, Ludo and Rosie
[08:59] Lam Erin: and these two people refuse to go to mediation but continue fighting
[09:00] Lam Erin: If there is an effective mechanism in place let us use it.
[09:00] Lam Erin: but I cant see it...Done.
[09:00] Tor Karlsvalt: thank you Lam, Ludo?
[09:00] Tor Karlsvalt: then Rosie then Spider22997
[09:01] Ludo Merit: I agree with Lam on many points. I agree with many who have spoken. I even agree on some of Pat's points.
[09:01] Ludo Merit: Is there anyone who has not received my notecard entitled "Comments on the grievance committee"
[09:02] Pat (patroklus.murakami): i haven’t
[09:02] Ludo Merit: OK. I want to point out what I think are the important differences between what Lam proposes and what I hope is the friendly amendment I suggest. Thanks, Pat
[09:03] Soro (soro.dagostino) raises hand
[09:04] Tor Karlsvalt: after Ludo, then Rosie, Spider and finally Soro.
[09:04] Ludo Merit: Lam, I agree that we need some way to stop people who will not accept mediation. I don't like the idea of having a permanent committee or giving that committee any authority whatsoever.
[09:04] Ludo Merit: I am suggesting a list of people known to be skilled in mediation and two ways to consult them
[09:05] Ludo Merit: First, disputants can decide to consult a mediator
[09:05] Ludo Merit: Second, bodies that have authority in CDS can order disputants to consult a mediator.
[09:06] Shep (shep.titian): that's a good idea
[09:07] Ludo Merit: The mediators should have no authority whatsoever. The authority behind their decisions comes from the body that has the authority and calls them.
[09:07] Lam Erin: this brings us back to the point of making it compulsory
[09:07] Pat (patroklus.murakami) raises hand
[09:07] Ludo Merit: That will solve the problem of citizens judging citizens, because the mediators are not judges.
[09:07] Lam Erin: for which I agree by the way.
[09:08] Tor Karlsvalt: after Ludo, then Rosie, Spider and Soro then Patroklus
[09:08] Ludo Merit: I believe that in some cases it is incumbent on bodies that have authority to make mediation compulsory
[09:08] Tor Karlsvalt is running out of fingers.
[09:08] Ludo Merit: For example I imagine a n authoritative body saying "What can we do about this? We doin't want to ban these two people"
[09:09] Ludo Merit: With mediation they have something they can do short of imposing extreme sanctions.
[09:10] Tor Karlsvalt: Heads up, it is 9:09 AM SLT
[09:10] Ludo Merit: I think the most important differences between my proposal and Lams is the difference between a committee and a list of qualified mediators, and the difference between mediators having authority and not having any authority of their own.
[09:10] Ludo Merit: The rest is detail
[09:10] Ludo Merit: Done
[09:10] Tor Karlsvalt: thank you Ludo
[09:11] Tor Karlsvalt: Rosie?
[09:11] Tor Karlsvalt: then Spider and Soro then Patroklus
[09:12] Rosie Gray: yes... well I'd like to point out what the Dean of the SC said earlier, that no matter what a grievance committee determined, that they (the SC) cannot ban someone unless they have committed a crime against the laws
[09:12] Rosie Gray: so anything around that is moot
[09:12] Rosie Gray: I like the idea of mediators, and that they have no authority
[09:13] Rosie Gray: I think that many times disputes could be nipped in the bud if there was someone reasonable mediating, and that 'most' people would see reason this way
[09:14] Rosie Gray: I really really wish there was a way to just outright ban the worst troublemakers, but unless they transgress a law there just isn't. People can be disruptive, argumentative, nasty, two-faced and all, but this is the nature of a democracy after all that unless it's against an actual law we have to live with it.
[09:14] Rosie Gray: done
[09:14] Tor Karlsvalt: Thank you Rosie
[09:15] Tor Karlsvalt: Spider?
[09:15] Spider22997 Upshaw: we have a governing body, just as the time cleo would not stop talking she was told to leave and she did, the other party was ejected as he did not leave, end of story, how can you even consider one citizen judging another they live here that allows them power they were not even elected to, you are saying that there are perfect citizens here who have no bias
[09:15] Tor Karlsvalt: and Soro then Patroklus
[09:15] Spider22997 Upshaw: done
[09:15] Lam Erin raises hands
[09:15] Tor Karlsvalt: a moment to read Spider's comment
[09:15] Timothy Scarborough is offline.
[09:15] Tor Karlsvalt: Thanks Spider, Soro?
[09:15] Soro (soro.dagostino): Preliminary requirement for Mediation is fairly standard in RL. Statistics show, in California at least, 95% of the disputes are resolved. If the parties fail to reach a compromise, then some form of adjudication is in order. In the services I have used, and been a mediator, that is what happens.
[09:15] Tor Karlsvalt: then Pat then Lam
[09:16] Pat (patroklus.murakami): i've used professional mediators in my working life and found them to be extremely useful
the important points are that both parties voluntarily seek their services
there is no judgment made on who is right or wrong
and the mediators are trained professionals
i think this kind of service could be very helpful for some of our current disputes
[09:16] Pat (patroklus.murakami): done
[09:16] Tor Karlsvalt: thank you Soro and Patroklus
[09:16] Rosie Gray nods in agreement with Pat
[09:17] Ludo Merit raises hand
[09:17] Tor Karlsvalt: a moment to read their comments.
[09:17] Tor Karlsvalt: Lam?
[09:17] Lam Erin: I personally have no objections calling those helping resolving the disputes mediators, conciliators etc
[09:18] Tor Karlsvalt: After Lam, then Ludo
[09:18] Lam Erin: I am in favor though of practical solutions
[09:18] Tor Karlsvalt: <<<coffee
[09:18] Lam Erin: I asked a question earlier and haven’t seen an answer: if the parties refuse to go to that body (however it is called)
[09:19] Tor Karlsvalt: back
[09:19] Pip Torok raises hand
[09:19] Lam Erin: or go but one of them does not like the mediation outcome and refuses to comply
[09:20] Pip Torok: one answer to that Lam is that the other party mutes then awaits the mediators comments
[09:20] Lam Erin: then what will the rest of us do? Sit down and watch the fighting going on I guess....I see nothing else happening
[09:20] Lam Erin: muting could have been an option from the first moment Pip
[09:20] Lam Erin: but they don’t use it.
[09:21] Lam Erin: they prefer to go public to drag the rest into their dispute
[09:21] Pip Torok: then for such ppl there is no solution ... the bolt is already shot
[09:21] Lam Erin: finally on the issue raised by Rosie
[09:21] Lam Erin: that people can be banned
[09:21] Lam Erin: when they break the laws.
[09:21] Lam Erin: I agree
[09:22] Lam Erin: these people do break the CDS laws anyway
[09:22] Lam Erin: many of these cases breach the TOS to which CDS has subscribed
[09:22] Pip Torok: but do they get caught?
[09:22] Lam Erin: yes they do
[09:23] Lam Erin: I can find the relevant LL TOS showing where breaches are
[09:23] Tor Karlsvalt: Reminder after Lam then Ludo
[09:23] Lam Erin: thats not the point though
[09:23] Lam Erin: it is how to create something effective ne restoring peace in the community
[09:24] Lam Erin: if this body doesn’t have some teeth it will simply not work...
[09:24] Pip Torok: agree...
[09:24] Lam Erin: as for the selection process
[09:24] Ludo Merit: Lam, the authority in the venue where the disruption is taking place can say "Take it to mediation, we won't listen here any more." Until the results of the mediation are reported to the authority that venue won't be disturbed by that issue. So the RA Chairman says "Take it to meditation" They take it to the forums. The forum moderator says 'Take it to meditation" Eventually every venue says "Take it to meditation"
[09:25] Lam Erin: it faces the same challenges whether you call them arbitrators, mediators, judges or whatever
[09:25] Ludo Merit: Bleep, I didn't mean to type that yet
[09:25] Tor Karlsvalt:
[09:25] Lam Erin: how will they be selected and from where will always be subject to challenge
[09:25] Lam Erin: done.
[09:25] Tor Karlsvalt: Thank you lam
[09:26] Tor Karlsvalt: everyone take a moment to read Ludo's comment.
[09:26] Tor Karlsvalt: Ludo do you need more time?
[09:26] Tor Karlsvalt: Heads up it is 9:26
[09:26] Ludo Merit: That’s why I suggested a list of qualified arbitrators, Lam. There should be a lot of them, so people can choose.
[09:26] Ludo Merit: Yes
[09:26] Tor Karlsvalt: Ludo has the floor.
[09:27] Ludo Merit: How the qualifications of the arbitrators will be determined is yet to be determined. However, I have a class that might help in training arbitrators once we have some.
[09:27] Lam Erin: give some indication Ludo frm where these people will come.
[09:27] Ludo Merit: People who are not initially qualified could be trained.
[09:27] Lam Erin: cds or outside?
[09:28] Soro (soro.dagostino) raises hand . . .
[09:28] Ludo Merit: I don't think we have to use non-CDS arbitrators but it might be handy to have some on the list
[09:28] Tor Karlsvalt: after Ludo, then Soro
[09:29] Ludo Merit: done for now
[09:29] Lam Erin: i don’t object on that in principle if others like the idea
[09:29] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Ludo, Soro?
[09:29] Soro (soro.dagostino): There is no reason CDS people can't serve, so long as they are not in the fight.
[09:30] Soro (soro.dagostino): There are several groups that exist in SL that work as resolution services.
[09:30] Soro (soro.dagostino): Training is the key.
[09:30] Spider22997 Upshaw: spider raises hand
[09:30] Soro (soro.dagostino): done
[09:31] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Soro
[09:31] Tor Karlsvalt: Spider?
[09:31] Spider22997 Upshaw: so let me understand, i was born in october under the sign of libra the scales, does that make me qualified
[09:31] Spider22997 Upshaw: done
[09:31] Lam Erin raises hand
[09:32] Soro (soro.dagostino): Of course -- Libras's control!!
[09:32] Soro (soro.dagostino): LOL
[09:33] Pat (patroklus.murakami) is also a libran. i'm warmer to this proposal....
[09:33] Lam Erin: in real world magistrates, juries or even arbitrators, mediators etc come from the Community
[09:33] Lam Erin: this has advantages
[09:33] Lam Erin: that these people know the cases
[09:33] Spider22997 Upshaw: spider raises hand
[09:34] Lam Erin: and a better understand the circumstances of the case
[09:34] Tor Karlsvalt: after Lam Spider22997
[09:34] Lam Erin: an outsider may be appearing more objective
[09:34] Lam Erin: but some times because he is alienated from how a community lives
[09:34] Lam Erin: and operates
[09:35] Lam Erin: could cause problems with their recommendatins....
[09:35] Ludo Merit nods in agreement with Lam
[09:35] Lam Erin: That's not absolute of course
[09:35] Lam Erin: but anywayCDS has a body
[09:35] Rosie Gray agrees with that point
[09:35] Lam Erin: with authority to judge citizens on certain issues
[09:35] Lam Erin: that is the SC.
[09:36] Lam Erin: done.
[09:36] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Lam
[09:36] Tor Karlsvalt: Spider?
[09:36] Pip Torok: (agrees strongly)
[09:36] Spider22997 Upshaw: you cannot tell me they are not bias in some way if they live here, these people must see both sides, that is only fair, the loser would always feel slited by the other citizens
[09:36] Ludo Merit raises hand
[09:36] Spider22997 Upshaw: done
[09:37] Tor Karlsvalt: thank Spider22997
[09:37] Lam Erin: there are safeguards Spider
[09:37] Tor Karlsvalt: Just a note it is now 9:37
[09:37] Tor Karlsvalt: Ludo?
[09:37] Ludo Merit: Spider, in mediation there often is no loser. In fact that's the ideal of mediation, to make a deal both parties can accept
[09:37] Ludo Merit: done
[09:37] Lam Erin: if one though thinks that the whole community is biased against them then I guess they shouldnt stay here
[09:37] Pip Torok must go folks ... will watch the forum for the transcript
[09:37] Tor Karlsvalt: thank you Ludo
[09:38] Tor Karlsvalt: bye Pip
[09:38] Lam Erin: bye Pip
[09:38] Pip Torok: bye
[09:38] Spider22997 Upshaw: bye
[09:38] Rosie Gray: bye Pip!
[09:38] Pip Torok is offline.
[09:38] Shep (shep.titian): bye Pip
[09:38] Pip Torok left chat range.
[09:38] Pip Torok left draw distance.
[09:38] Soro (soro.dagostino) raises hand
[09:38] Tor Karlsvalt: Any more comments, Soro?
[09:38] Lam Erin: my fundamental question though
[09:38] Spider22997 Upshaw: spider raises hand
[09:38] Lam Erin: which is yet to be answered is how
[09:38] Lam Erin: we deal with people refusing to go there
[09:39] Tor Karlsvalt: Soro raised his hand and has the floor
[09:39] Lam Erin: despite recommendations, advice etc...done.
[09:39] Tor Karlsvalt: after Soro, then Lam
[09:39] Soro (soro.dagostino): Given the conversation, Lam's proposal should be revised and examined again.
[09:39] Soro (soro.dagostino): Set out a mediation protocol.
[09:40] Soro (soro.dagostino): Several exist in the Real World.
[09:40] Tor Karlsvalt: Soro, are you done?
[09:40] Soro (soro.dagostino): yes
[09:40] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks
[09:40] Tor Karlsvalt: Lam?
[09:41] Lam Erin: my suggestion on this is the person wishing to make a counter proposal or proposal for amendments
[09:41] Lam Erin: to present them themselves as it is hard for me or anybody else to write something which represents the views of someone else
[09:42] Lam Erin: i can refine the final part or prepare the amendments
[09:42] Lam Erin: but I need specific proposals
[09:42] Lam Erin: as I may misinterpret what people want or say.
[09:43] Queen Bee's shoutout: see notecard ready to get down today! Happy Sunday everyone... XXX NOMA
[09:43] Lam Erin: and I would ask for clear answer to the scenario where people refuse to accept the results of mediation
[09:43] Ludo Merit raises hand
[09:44] Pat (patroklus.murakami) raises hand to reply to lam
[09:44] Tor Karlsvalt: Ludo after Lam.
[09:44] Lam Erin: done.
[09:44] Tor Karlsvalt: after Lam, then Ludo, then Patroklus
[09:44] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Lam
[09:44] Tor Karlsvalt: Ludo?
[09:44] Tor Karlsvalt: then Patroklus
[09:44] Soro (soro.dagostino): ((all Libras -- unite/!!))
[09:44] Soro (soro.dagostino):
[09:44] Tor Karlsvalt: Heads up it is 9:44
[09:45] Ludo Merit: I will write a clear answer for Lam if I can get some help from people who are more cognizant of the laws and practices of CDS than I am. I can then give clearer examples. Most of you here are people who could help me. Please talk to me. Thanks Done
[09:45] Tor Karlsvalt: thank you Ludo, a moment to read her comment.
[09:46] Tor Karlsvalt: Pat?
[09:46] Pat (patroklus.murakami): lam the point of mediation is that it is voluntary
[09:46] Pat (patroklus.murakami): if ppl don't accept it, they don't act
[09:46] Pat (patroklus.murakami): and we have to accept that
[09:47] Pat (patroklus.murakami): trying to compel good behavior is a fools errand
[09:47] Pat (patroklus.murakami): done
[09:47] Callipygian Christensen raises her hand
[09:47] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Patroklus
[09:47] Tor Karlsvalt: Callie
[09:47] Lam Erin: so we have to accept that they will continue fighting in front of us
[09:47] Tor Karlsvalt: Callie has the floor
[09:48] Callipygian Christensen: Since part of the point of this is to avert the taking of sides, you might consider that publishing the mediation results, with a clear rationale for the outcomes is enough..
[09:49] Callipygian Christensen: at that point if people still want to bicker there is at least an objective record of the situation available and it might encourage people to use the mute button more
[09:49] Lam Erin: do you truly believe that Callie?
[09:49] Callipygian Christensen: shunning has a long history in communities - it's an effective tool if based on reasonable facts
[09:50] Callipygian Christensen: Lam, I'd like to believe we are all adults and a version of the issue that isn’t she said or he said but 'the mediator said' would have some weight
[09:50] Callipygian Christensen: done
[09:51] Lam Erin: I agree about the weight
[09:51] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks Callipygian
[09:51] Tor Karlsvalt: Lam?
[09:51] Lam Erin: I do not object in principle to have mediation or purely voluntary system
[09:51] Lam Erin: i really doubt though it will work
[09:52] Lam Erin: based on current experience
[09:52] Lam Erin: currently we do have an informal mediation in place
[09:52] Lam Erin: meaning that when two people fight
[09:52] Lam Erin: other citizens, some of them well respected,
[09:53] Lam Erin: have tried to mediate
[09:53] Lam Erin: we have seen such informal mediation also in the forum
[09:53] Lam Erin: also attempts by moderators
[09:53] Lam Erin: to keep the forum at civilized level
[09:53] Soro (soro.dagostino): There is always Coventry --Idioms
3.
send to Coventry, to refuse to associate with; openly and pointedly ignore: His friends sent him to Coventry after he was court-martialed.
[09:54] Lam Erin: nobody listens though or at least that is my impression
[09:54] Lam Erin: and the community's problems stem from those
[09:54] Lam Erin: who don’t want to listen
[09:54] Lam Erin: anyone
[09:55] Lam Erin: we have such people around many of them.......Unfortunately...Done.
[09:55] Tor Karlsvalt: thanks
[09:55] Tor Karlsvalt: Well it is 9:55
[09:55] Tor Karlsvalt: I have a short statement
[09:55] Callipygian Christensen: In part that is because this isn't RL - consequences here are not the same and one can disrupt anyone and everyone and not have to run into them at the bank or at the PTA meeting
[09:55] Tor Karlsvalt: then I think we can wrap up.
[09:55] Tor Karlsvalt: Callie, do you need more time?
[09:55] Yavanna Llanfair is offline.
[09:56] Callipygian Christensen: urgh..typed that in the wrong place..was meant for a notecard..sorry Tor
[09:56] Tor Karlsvalt: oh ok no problem
[09:56] Tor Karlsvalt: Thank you all for coming today. I especially thank Lam and Cadence for putting forth this proposal. And Ludo for her counter proposal and all your comments here and on the forum.

I think your presence and reasoned comments are an indication that we as a community have a problem.

We will have at least two more meetings in the coming week. All are welcome to resume this debate then or on the forums.
[09:56] Tor Karlsvalt: I will post transcripts to the forum thread. Also, I will try to post a bit of a summary. At the moment it seems we are divided but trending toward only some sort of mediation plan.

I hope to see you all at later meetings and please encourage others to attend.

This concludes this first meeting. Thank you all.

Lam Erin · Post by **Lam Erin** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:18 pm

I want to thank all who took part in the meeting yesterday and expressed their views and proposals. Also I wish to thank Tor who did a great job chairing this meeting. There will be two more two more meetings to follow though I am under the impression that the lively debate will continue for a while as a variety of views have been presented and a variety of proposals have been made.

I will use this thread to continue the debate and to feed ideas and proposals about the coming meetings and also about the final form that the law will (or should have).

As you can see after reading the minutes the main issues that have emerged so far revolve around the following issues:

1. The voluntary or obligatory nature of the proposed conflict resolution body
2. The source of authority and the powers of the proposed body
3. The type of conflict resolution mechanism CDS needs.
4. The constitutional nature of a body with "judicial" functions.

On those point I made some comments yesterday in the meeting. I will make some further points today and in future meetings. My further points are as follows:

The voluntary or obligatory nature of the proposed body: almost all people (with one or two exceptions) who attended the meeting agreed to the need of having a conflict resolution mechanism in CDS. Most expressed the view that this mechanism should be voluntary and proposed various ways (mostly various forms of mediation) that this could be achieved.

The draft proposal favours a mixed system: the parties could go to the Committee voluntarily if they wished so to resolve their private dispute or could be obliged to go there if their conflicts have escalated to a level which causes problems to innocent fellow citizens or to cds as a whole. Most of those present in the meeting seemed to reject imposing any obligation on the parties even if their acts cause disturbance and disrupt the peaceful life and enjoyment of their fellow citizens. They want a purely voluntary system which, if any or both of the parties refuse to use will be unable to do anything. In simple words the conflict will keep going on and disturbance of peace of the rest of the citizens will continue unabated.

Further many citizens in the meeting expressed the view that the committee should have no authority and its decisions should not be binding meaning that the parties could easily reject it if they did not like its results.What would follow this is again continuing of the disturbance of the peace without the CDS Community being able to do something about it. The reason given was that some citizens strongly oppose the existence of any body with any form of "judicial" powers despite the draft stating clearly that the body is not court and does not allocate blame or punish.

I will comment further on these two points which I think are very important.

a.In the current situation CDS IS NOT a democratic community. Democracy requires equality before the law, which is protected by the existence of an effective conflict resolution mechanism usually in the form of a court of law. If we dont want a court, lets not have one but we still need an effective mechanism of resolving private conflicts and which will also protect individual rights from violations by other citizens. If someone knows any democratic society, which offers citizenship but no protection of basic rights, I would ask them to show it to me and to the rest of CDS.

CDS has developed this "innovation" of having no system of protection of citizens whose rights are abused by other citizens or whose peaceful life is disturbed by conflicts of other citizens. If for example some citizen is being harassed or suffers from the aggressive behaviour of other citizens, there is nowhere to go in CDS. He is left alone and the friendly recommendation is "get on with it". That is not democracy....It may be anarchy, chaos, circus or anything else but no democracy.

b. The current situation in CDS often violates (in the case of these conflicts) the LL community standards (let alone the international convention of human rights etc) and the same the CDS constitution, which in the preample states clearly:

All branches of the government are bound to serve the public before themselves and to uphold the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, local laws, the SL ToS, and Community Standards without exception.

Do the current branches of government in case of conflict UPHOLD COMMUNITY STANDARDS are required by the CDS constitution? the Answer is simply NO. A mere reading for a starter, of the Community standards shows why. In case of private conflicts which remain unresolved and drag the rest of CDS into them some or all of the following community standards are violated:

http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php

Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as a whole.
.....

Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment.

....
Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about your fellow Residents without their consent -- including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, alternate account names, and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their Resident profile -- is not allowed. Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited.

.....

Every Resident has a right to live their Second Life. Disrupting scheduled events, repeated transmission of undesired advertising content, the use of repetitive sounds, following or self-spawning items, or other objects that intentionally slow server performance or inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life are examples of Disturbing the Peace.

Many of the above rights are breached in case of conflicts.What does CDS bodies do about these violations? Simply nothing....The obligation of these bodies to uphold the constitution, which clearly requires them to uphold the community standards is simply not met.

An obligatory mechanism of conflict resolution (which would strictly apply when voluntary settlement is not possible) would help restore the provisions of the CDS constitution which are violated in case of conflict.

A strictly voluntary mechanism proposed by many in the meeting falls short of the required standard because it offers no solution when the warring parties refuse to go to mediation voluntarily.Even if the Scientific Council or other body of authority (which I doubt it exists) orders the parties to go to mediation as suggested, this does not oblige the parties to accept the results of mediation if the latter are not binding.

I am personally surprised that members of the Scientific Council who were at the meeting were in favour of a voluntary mechanism that we all know it wont work as nothing "voluntary" in CDS has worked. Members of CDS have already declared before hand that they wont go on any such mechanism voluntary or involuntary...The response seems to be silence.

The creation of a body without actual authority means the creation of another inefficient, ineffective and inadequate body in CDS (as if we had none of them and we need one).

I am personally strongly in favour of a body with compulsory jurisdiction which will be triggered if the parties fail to go to the body voluntarily and their conflict causes problems and complaints to other citizens. I dont personally care if that body will be the Committee proposed in the draft proposal or another body proposed by someone else or an existing body (SC). The matter is not personal.

I am strongly in favour of having a body with decisive powers because failure to create such a body will prolong the current undemocratic and unconstitutional nature of CDS conditions which raise serious doubts to any person really believing in democracy about whether it is worth being a member of this Community which does not offer any protection to individual rights or whether it is better not being part of it.

P.S. LUdo I will post your proposal as soon as I log in to SL and can open the notecard you sent me. I am currently writing this text from a train whilst travelling back home. I will do it later tonight or tomorrow.

Website · Post by **Tor Karlsvalt** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:29 pm

All citizens of CDS are invited to the Docks in Colonia Nova to review and discuss the proposed Grievance Committee.

This will be the second of several meetings. The first meeting was well attended and offered all an open and cordial forum to express views on this proposal.

Hope to see you there. Here is the SLURL to the Docks: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/C ... /52/104/22

I felt Thursday is the best time for this meeting. Caledon is having its 8th Birthday Celebration on Wednesday.

Tor Karlsvalt, Member of RA
Commission Chairperson

CDS Discussion

Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

Transcript of the 1st Public Meeting on the Proposal

Re: Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

2nd Meeting re Proposed Grievance Committee 6PM Feb. 27th