Public law: citizen honorable conduct

[Sudane Erato]

However, I still think it's a good idea to have a code in place in regards to the treatment of one another even if we are a small community.
The Girl Scouts of America for example, has a two promises that it's members try to adhere to, The Girl Scout Law and The Girl Scout promise.
http://www.girlscouts.org/program/gs_ce ... omise_law/
to my knowledge they don't have a judiciary system in place, but rather they try to ensure that their members understand this law and follow it. They recite it before every meeting to help enforce the promise the girls made to one another and themselves. perhaps instead of a law we say it's a pledge that our citizens make to one another. Something to add to a "Welcome basket" for new citizens of CDS.

Interesting.

I agree entirely with Pip, Beathan, Soro, etc. We do NOT want behavior rules written into our CDS code of law, any more than we do in RL. But I find Bells' reference to the Girl Scouts interesting. Is it inimical to a just and democratic society that we have a statement of values? At this time, our statement of values simply quotes those established by LL, the TOS and the Community Standards. While OK, do remember that these are rules written by a large RL commercial corporation for the purpose of furthering its own interests. On the other hand, we as a group who have formed a voluntary community might well wish to declare our own values... undoubtedly Jos's motivation. The USA community has decided to embody it's values in a document called the Bill of Rights. Perhaps, at some point, our community might create its own "bill of rights".

Yes... shush me away... we surely don't need yet another project to engage in bitter conflict over. That's just the internal obstacle. Conceivably such a bill of rights might conflict with the LL TOS, creating an external obstacle as well. But it's an interesting thought. Like the US Bill of Rights, such a statement might have an effect far beyond the interpretation and implementation of our laws.

Sudane....................................

[Beathan]

Sudane--

The Bar Ass'n Article got a number of things wrong, but it was interesting. I personally would rather start with a Bill of Rights than a Code of Conduct -- it would be safer to protect the citizen's rights before formally circumscribing them. The UDHR is not a perfect fit in this regard.

Bells --

We do have a Code of Conduct. From the outset, we have accepted the UN UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) as our Code of Conduct. It does not merely guide and limit our government as a regulator of personal behavior, it also acts as a guide on individual behavior. It is not perfect -- both irl and in its fittedness to a virtual community, but we have it.

We also have a judicial system -- it is called the "Scientific Council." It has a simple procedure and uses methods legal scholars call "person-centric" in its decisionmaking, but it is an adjudicative body. It makes decisions, applying and interpreting the CDS Code and Constitution.

The Code of laws is here: http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/cds- ... e-of-laws/
The Constitution is here: http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/cds- ... stitution/

The Scientific Council is perhaps not well-suited to sit as a criminal court because there is no prejudicial enforcement body (police) and no clear policies in place to protect rights of the accused. I would get these right before imposing criminal-law-like restrictions on the behavior of citizens.

Even in RL, I think that a criminal restriction on some behavior should be imposed only if: 1. the behavior is occurring with some regularity without the restriction and 2. the behavior is causing public or substantial private harm. I see no need for the proposed substantive "Honor Code" on these grounds.

[josjoha]

Hello everyone,

It surprises me that something as unnocuous as a law that protects individuals from already unacceptible harrassement by other individuals - such as repeated foul language (b*tch, *ssh*le, etc), chat-box flooding, or outright stalking them around the CDS lands would create such heavy handed debate. I would think it is a mere formality to have such a protective law on the books. Law is there to protect the 'weak' (a minority for example) against the menacing of the powerful (the majority or those in powah). That is all this law does: protecting minorities and individuals from undue harrassement. For example someone is constantly experiencing hateful language, which can be designed by a social clique in control to work someone they do not like for whatever reason out of the CDS community. Flooding in chat is already a reason to ban/kick people from an IRC channel. All these norms are already in place in society, and already the natural law between individuals. By the way, this law is inspired from such an issue (flooding), and is meant as a leading step to deal with this flooding through proper procedure without having to make it an arduous and divisive social activity. I prefer a clean debate and a proper Judiciary protocol that will in the end leave everyone friends and celibrating how wonderful the protocols have worked, then to embark on a dubious attempt to find the truth by myself (which will surely fail) and try to ask people to behave friendly if they can (which will be obnoxious, offensive, divisive and enemy-making). Hence I won't even try, but I would like to see a proper clean process about such a case.

Like I said it is not the problem of this law that the CDS has so far failed (in my view it is a failure) to set up a proper court and judiciary process. I have extensive ideas about how to set up a proper democratic Government, part of such a Government is a duly appointed Judiciary containing factual court, procedure repeal court, and Constitutional or law-interpretation high court. This is how a judiciary works: try the case on facts, repeal that decision by contesting the proper procedures where followed in that factual court case, and/or attempt to show that the law contradicts the Constitutional principles of the Republic. I believe that it is common sense to have such a court. I do not see the need for an extensive debate about a court system yes or no, you understand already the need for it, or not fine with me too.

About the 'social process' mentioned above being able to solve things: that is exactly what the lack of procedure looks like. The 'social process' dominated by the ruling clique. That is what a judiciary is for, to help the weak attain justice and truth in the face of a menacing majority or rulership clique with their own shady feelings and designs (that is how it tends to be in the real-world at least). Does the CDS with a small group need a Judiciary ? If it has a state-system already, I do not see why it can not also have a Judiciary in place.

Perhaps I could again draw the attention to that I believe the CDS is following the design of an insufficient form of democracy: neo-Greek factions democracy, which gives those elected great power because they more or less rule with impunity between elections. I do not agree with such a system of power, but prefer that someone elected can always be removed from their power. By having such a system (immediate recall), in an effective way (which means someone is elected by only a few people or a voter-block, so that they can come together to re-appoint their spokesperson and therefore it is efficient) you prevent this rule-by-clique that you get in neo-Greek factions democracy. I usually refer to neo-Greek factions democracy as being a semi-democracy (and a semi-dictatorship). It is not a real democracy, in practice the will of the people is not followed (in the real world), and after some period of increasing corruption it descends into Empire (if it hadn't already!) and tyranny. It just doesn't work, it is a failed model.

* A judiciary should have been established already. I have a website www.law4.org where the protocols are already done, it can be adapted for the miniscule CDS size as well; but is largely the same as we have in the neo-Greek nations in real-world.

* The 'rule by clique' is what we have now without a proper judiciary process. 'Social control' is mentioned as functioning, but it always only functions for the powerful, who tend to be afraid of equality before the law and equal justice for all before an impartial judge, because they stand to loose power. Therefore all this Kafka talk is something that belongs to this 'social control' rather then a proper procedure and law I try to set up. I therefore believe that accusations of this proposal being Kafkaesque is rather Kafkaeque itself. I wish rather not to debate it on such a strong language, and prefer to leave the question of Kafka yes or Kafka no if possible. The arguments where exchanged about Kafka, let's leave it at that and have a friendly debates - an honorouble citizens debate ; ). (lol)

* This law was in relation to a real issue: someone claimed to be harrassed and was not afforded due process. This proposed law is to first establish due process within the CDS, and then see where that process leads in that case to have it at least properly addressed (whichever party may have won is fine with me).

* I want true democracy, rule of objective law, equality before the law, protection of minorities and the 'weak' ('weak' between quotes, because we are talking about politically weak by minority, while such persons who are that minority are often the strongest of all.)

best regards & have a nice day,
jos boersema

PS It is an enjoying debate to have, so all is good and well I hope.

[Beathan]

Jos --

Thanks for your reply.

A couple quick points --

1. We have a judiciary. It is called the "Scientific Council". It acts as an independent body -- and that has its dangers (as seen in the US Federal Judiciary) -- but, on the whole, it is better for judges to be independent rather than dependent on some other political or social institution.

2. IRL the need to recall government officials is very important. However, in the CDS, government office term lengths are so short that a recall process is not necessary. The term will expire before a recall process can be fully organized and brought to fruition. If some officer is doing so poor a job that they should be recalled, they should be voted out in the next biyearly election. Add the CDS term limits to this equation and you have a system of high protection from corruption and nepotism.

3. Factions, even informal factions, are a way to focus and define political debate through "pre-framing". That is very useful, especially in a virtual community such as ours where we come from many different cultures, speak different languages, have different rl experiences and expectations of politics, and have limited time.

4. I don't think that reference to Kafka is offensive. I certainly didn't intend it to be. Calling a legal system "Kafkaesque" is a short-hand way of saying that it appears to have an opaque, or at least undefined, procedure and therefore fails to properly protect the rights of the accused. That was the most serious flaw in your proposal. The debate did not focus on the specifics of your proposal for a reason -- most of the specifics are not controversial (although I would challenge a couple of them). Rather, the problem was that there was no enforcement procedure provided, so we could not determine whether the law, if implemented, would be enforced and, if so, whether it would be enforced in a manner that preserved our rights.

5. You indicate that your proposal was in response to a specific incident. I would like to hear more about that incident to see if there is a better way to address it. It is almost certain that the single incident did not involve all 7 points of your proposal. It is also likely that there are two sides to the incident and that the conflict involves each side's perception that the other violated some social rule. (You use the phrase "undue harassment" -- I would expect (not knowing anything about the incident) that the other side would call their behavior "a reasonable and measured response to a breach of etiquette" or somesuch.) I believe that such conflicts are usually better dealt with socially, rather than legally, as they generally highlight some lack of consensus on what a social regulation should be -- and a criminal law should not prohibit some behavior until the community has nearly unanimous agreement that the behavior is wrong (or harmful).

6. Thus, social control should precede legal control -- and legal control should not seek to supplant social control. The law is heavy-handed by nature. It does not admit of the nuance and flexibility of informal social interactions. The law should act to intervene only where social interactions are veering badly into dysfunction -- and then should act minimally to remove the dysfunction as inconsequentially as possible. That is, I would apply what in American Law we call "strict scrutiny" to any criminal law -- the law should be narrowly tailored to resolve some compelling state interest and must be the least restrictive means to that end. However, as a general rule, I have found that most hostile, argumentative, or otherwise poor interactions between people are better resolved when there is no legal procedure that the participants can impose on the situation, as lack of a legal action alternative forces them to address and resolve the issue themselves through personal problem-solving and communication. The availability of a legal response often formalizes the conflict and actually prevents a resolution, at least a timely resolution, while solidifying the conflict such that it frequently causes a permanent break in what was a worthwhile relationship.

7. My experience of the CDS has not involved clique-centered bullying. It seems that you have a different perception -- asserting that there is an "elite" that is using social control to stifle dissent. What you are describing does happen irl and in virtual communities, but I have always found the CDS community to be both small enough and fluid enough (new people coming, old ones leaving) to minimize this. I think the CDS always sees an exciting mix of newer and older citizens in its government, and that would not happen in a society (even a virtual society) based on control by old-guard elites. In fact, if this society were fundamentally elitist, we would see restrictions on voting, rather than hand wringing about low turn out, and term length extensions rather than term limits.

Beathan

[josjoha]

Hi Beathen,

ad 2. With recall" (I usually use another terminology) I mean that a 'voters block' can get together on their own schedule, and elect someone else. There is no cumbersome "recall" process necessary, the entire affair can be conducted in minutes or hours. I agree that the terms are short in the CDS, however you still set up a club of people who will have dominating powers, while if you had an immediate-re-appointment system (such as I propose) then the 'club of representatives' will have no form of power over anyone, as they could be removed from their position to the last person within minutes or hours, if the citizenry so deems necessary. This immediate recall power means that the delegates are - as it where - constantly in need of the approval of their voters, which reduces corruption / nepotism and clique-rule.

ad 3. Factions are a way to sharpen the political debate, I can see how it can historically come about after a civil war for example, and how it can be useful for a society that still has not found a way to live for itself but is in need of a focussed debate of the grand design of society. Factions tend to be - or ought to be - groups who propose a way to live for all, to have a coherent set of principles and ideas to shape society by. Corruption in the factions democracy tends to mean (in the Netherlands at least) that the debate shifts from programs, principles and truth, to petty squable between characters. Thus I would submit that a factions-democracy period is meant to find a way for society to live, and of course I do propose to have such a way, a way which entails among other things the power to immediately replace a delegate. But short of such a plan being implemented I agree that it can be good to focus the debate.

ad 4. I do not feel addressed when the point is made that there is no established legal procedure in the CDS. It is not the job of a single law to fix fundamental issues with the state system, issues which I proposed how to fix them as well. I disagree at calling something as benign as normal conduct between people infractions against which could bear mild punishments "Kafkaesque." In my opinion it is beating with a sledge-hammer on a grain of rice, which seems to be to be Kafkaeque and betrays a possible lack of content arguments to win the case. If you think the law is too stringent, then there can be a debate about loosening it. It could also be loosened radically, so that the law would only start to become applicable when all social norms have been radically overstepped.

ad 5. I disagree with your idea for direct social control in the moment, which seems to be what anarchists usually propose. I want the rule of law, democratic law making, and due proces of law before an impartial judiciary. I have already given my arguments around this so will spare you a repeat of them.

ad 6. I understand what you mean, and to this end you will see that the law proposal contains that the infraction is repeated and of an increased offensive nature then the casual shouting match. I note that if there is a law, this causes people to be better behaved sometimes so as to avoid a succesful prosecution of a case against them.

ad 7. You seem to erroneously project experiences and opinions unto me. I do not say that there is a ruling clique, or that I have been bullied. My case is one of principle and potential dangers, which is what one worries about when writing law and in particular when writing Constitutional law. The legal matter I have hinted to does also not involve me.

best regards,
josjoha

[Tanoujin Milestone]

Hi Josjoha,
Do I get this right: you know about an ongoing conflict amongst citizens? Should they not be encouraged to ask the SC for mediation? This could be an interesting test to the current system. I say mediation, because there is only one option in escalation: harm the community and get people banned. Emotionalized folks will never accept "mild punishment".
There is no way to apply a criminal code back to the past: no punishment without law. So this will not solve any current problem. And there is no need for this kind of prophylaxis as long as our conflicts can be handled consensually. I would appreciate to see this demonstrated. It is up to those in conflict to put it on the track.
As to values and rights: i agree with Beathan, the UDHR is not perfect, but IMO the best choice, because it is a document of the ongoing project of enlightenment. Freedom, autonomy and reason, that is what I raise my three fingers for, esp. in an environment ruled by a commercial corporation, as Sudane pointed out.
Thanks for bringing up such an interesting topic. Let us drop Kafka and switch to Kant & Adorno

[Beathan]

Hi Beathen,

ad 2. With recall" (I usually use another terminology) I mean that a 'voters block' can get together on their own schedule, and elect someone else. There is no cumbersome "recall" process necessary, the entire affair can be conducted in minutes or hours. I agree that the terms are short in the CDS, however you still set up a club of people who will have dominating powers, while if you had an immediate-re-appointment system (such as I propose) then the 'club of representatives' will have no form of power over anyone, as they could be removed from their position to the last person within minutes or hours, if the citizenry so deems necessary. This immediate recall power means that the delegates are - as it where - constantly in need of the approval of their voters, which reduces corruption / nepotism and clique-rule.

Jos -- I see what you are saying, and I think it would be unrealistic, counterproductive, chaotic, and more dangerous than what we have. We don't have full participation even in scheduled and advertised elections -- so the idea that a "voters block" of a majority of the citizens can be assembled like a flash mob is unrealistic. If we allow "voters blocks" of a smaller size, then we would allow organized factions to dominate politics through its organizing of spot "voters blocks" which would then overturn the majority will of our citizens as manifested in a regular election. The effect would either be unworkable and useless (majority requirement) or would allow for a much greater degree of "domination by clique" than we have now.

ad 3. Factions are a way to sharpen the political debate, I can see how it can historically come about after a civil war for example, and how it can be useful for a society that still has not found a way to live for itself but is in need of a focussed debate of the grand design of society. Factions tend to be - or ought to be - groups who propose a way to live for all, to have a coherent set of principles and ideas to shape society by. Corruption in the factions democracy tends to mean (in the Netherlands at least) that the debate shifts from programs, principles and truth, to petty squable between characters. Thus I would submit that a factions-democracy period is meant to find a way for society to live, and of course I do propose to have such a way, a way which entails among other things the power to immediately replace a delegate. But short of such a plan being implemented I agree that it can be good to focus the debate.

I see factions differently -- based on an American Federalist and pluralist perspective. A faction, as I see it, is a group of people united around some particular interest (which is often in competition with or opposition to some other particular interest of some other citizens, who may or may not have their own faction). The benefit of the system is gained when no faction has a dominating majority, requiring that all interest groups converse and work together, through compromise and coalition building, to produce a general, but changeable, consensus on what interests to advance (even though the advance of some interests necessary prevents other interests from advancing). To this end, I think that the local issues of corruption within (and originating from) factions and of self-dealing to the detriment of the community are self-correcting -- when revealed, the responsible parties are removed from the ruling coalition and replaced, and the harm is usually not long-lasting or irremediable.

I further don't think that a "factions-democracy period" is a transitional period through which a society may advance to get to some permanent and stable democratic utopia. I think that stasis is poison in a democracy -- and that therefore a democratic utopia is not possible. Without an achievable utopia, the best situation we can have is the raucous and flexible society produced through the clash of factions in a marketplace of ideas.

ad 4. I do not feel addressed when the point is made that there is no established legal procedure in the CDS. It is not the job of a single law to fix fundamental issues with the state system, issues which I proposed how to fix them as well. I disagree at calling something as benign as normal conduct between people infractions against which could bear mild punishments "Kafkaesque." In my opinion it is beating with a sledge-hammer on a grain of rice, which seems to be to be Kafkaeque and betrays a possible lack of content arguments to win the case. If you think the law is too stringent, then there can be a debate about loosening it. It could also be loosened radically, so that the law would only start to become applicable when all social norms have been radically overstepped.

ad 5. I disagree with your idea for direct social control in the moment, which seems to be what anarchists usually propose. I want the rule of law, democratic law making, and due proces of law before an impartial judiciary. I have already given my arguments around this so will spare you a repeat of them.

ad 6. I understand what you mean, and to this end you will see that the law proposal contains that the infraction is repeated and of an increased offensive nature then the casual shouting match. I note that if there is a law, this causes people to be better behaved sometimes so as to avoid a succesful prosecution of a case against them.

My point is that you are doing things dangerously backwards. We need to have a safe and sound legal process BEFORE we implement substantive criminal law or the implementation of that law will either be impossible or will suppress or violate our rights as citizens.

I'm not against having a formal process -- and I support rule of law (and think we actually already have it through the SC). I would be happy to come up with somesuch proposal with you. However, without a safe process, we shouldn't develop substantive law.

Building in substantive tests does not address this. What is a "repeated infraction"? Who decides if behavior forms a pattern? Who decides what counts as an "infraction"? What evidence is used (does it require a previous conviction, or merely testimony that the accused has behaved offensively more than once)? Again, we need process before we can safely impose substantive criminal law.

ad 7. You seem to erroneously project experiences and opinions unto me. I do not say that there is a ruling clique, or that I have been bullied. My case is one of principle and potential dangers, which is what one worries about when writing law and in particular when writing Constitutional law. The legal matter I have hinted to does also not involve me.

best regards,
josjoha

I apologize if I erroneously project experiences onto you. I was being charitable. If there is not a recurring problem of people behaving in ways that would violate your substantive criminal code, then your proposal is a solution in search of problem. Those are always unwise because (1) they are unnecessary and often make things worse by complicating human relationships without need, (2) they often create the very problems they seek to solve by conceptualizing them; (3) even if they correctly anticipate some set of future problems, they usually fail to predict them exactly, leading the solution to be a poor fit to the very problem it anticipated because the details were not known or knowable in advance; and (4) they are subject to moral/political critique as being over-reaching by government into the lives of citizens beyond the proper limits of government (which is to solve real problems and make citizens lives better, not merely to control for the sake of controlling).

Beathan

[Aliasi Stonebender]

To be honest, I don't see the need for such a law at all.

You have land tools. Use them. It isn't as if people can steal anything from your land to begin with. If you wish to discuss things in private, this is why you can message people directly or set up a conference chat. Moreover we then have to decide exactly what constitutes an 'invasion'; what if I make my home deliberately so people can enter? (Which I do - I do have a locked door to a semi-private area although I don't consider it a security measure so much as a screen door; it lets people know I'd prefer them to stay away.)

We've gotten into plenty enough trouble over the years trying to inappropriately apply 'first life' analogies to Second Life. My preferences - some of which we have, others not - is to prohibit all non-discriminatory security. No security orbs. No whitelist-only banlines. If someone is bothering you in your house, ban them. If they're spamming chat, mute them. You can, quite effectively, make someone as close to a non-entity to you as you like in Second Life - even to the extent of not rendering them or objects made by them, with some third-party viewers.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Aliasi, that was an extremely succinct description of the issues. I agree 100% with both the description and your analysis.

Cindy

[Rosie Gray]

This has been an interesting discussion. It seems to me that Jos is trying to create a law to enforce civil interactions between people. I'm not sure that is possible in a democracy - although I understand his desire. I have to agree with Aliasi's analysis as well.