Reforming Land Sales

[Patroklus Murakami]

Our current mechanisms for selling land (and thereby establishing citizenship) are open to abuse. It is possible with our current rules for individuals or groups to control access to land sales and thereby to citizenship in the CDS. The way this works is to buy up plots of land whenever they become free and then control who purchases them by only selling (or giving) them to your friends and supporters. In this way, someone who would fail to gain political support by appealing to the current citizens can build a power base by controlling access to newcomers.

These sales are all recorded on the landscanner here.

I think we could find a way to prevent this kind of abuse which would also make the CDS a genuinely open society. One solution would be to hold a 'waiting list' for parcels in the CDS with the Chancellor. When parcels are abandoned, or when citizens are considering selling their plot, the person at the head of the waiting list could be asked if they would be interested in the parcel. If they're not, you could go further down the list until you find someone who would like to take it. This would be the way that all abandoned parcels are dealt with but voluntary when citizens are thinking about selling. We would have to publicise this in order to raise awareness that this would be a way to sell your parcel.

We could go a step further and enforce the rule that all land sales are centralised in this way. That's probably a step too far for most people; I would have some concerns about it myself. But it would mean that people were genuine in coming to the CDS and make it more difficult to manipulate the electoral roll by 'gifting' land to friends and 'helping out' with tier in return for votes.

[Garnet Psaltery]

Your idea is certainly worth serious consideration.

I have just two concerns:-

1) There is nothing to stop someone manipulative from engaging a number of friends to apply for land and thus clog the waiting-list.

2) How long does one wait for a reply from someone on the waiting-list before going on to the next in line? We could lose interested buyers simply by making them wait.

Because of these concerns I couldn't agree with making this the only available procedure, but can see its usefulness for dealing with abandoned parcels.

[Callipygian]

Our current mechanisms for selling land (and thereby establishing citizenship) are open to abuse. It is possible with our current rules for individuals or groups to control access to land sales and thereby to citizenship in the CDS. The way this works is to buy up plots of land whenever they become free and then control who purchases them by only selling (or giving) them to your friends and supporters. In this way, someone who would fail to gain political support by appealing to the current citizens can build a power base by controlling access to newcomers.

These sales are all recorded on the landscanner here.

I think we could find a way to prevent this kind of abuse which would also make the CDS a genuinely open society. One solution would be to hold a 'waiting list' for parcels in the CDS with the Chancellor. When parcels are abandoned, or when citizens are considering selling their plot, the person at the head of the waiting list could be asked if they would be interested in the parcel. If they're not, you could go further down the list until you find someone who would like to take it. This would be the way that all abandoned parcels are dealt with but voluntary when citizens are thinking about selling. We would have to publicise this in order to raise awareness that this would be a way to sell your parcel.

We could go a step further and enforce the rule that all land sales are centralised in this way. That's probably a step too far for most people; I would have some concerns about it myself. But it would mean that people were genuine in coming to the CDS and make it more difficult to manipulate the electoral roll by 'gifting' land to friends and 'helping out' with tier in return for votes.

Hi Pat!

I agree that some form of waiting list would be beneficial - 'we have a waiting list for land' has been said a number of times in recent months but I haven't actually seen one. I'd fully support all abandoned parcels being offered to those on such a list before being set for open sale. For private sales, I think having the list public would allow citizens with land for sale to contact those on the list if they choose to, but I would not support any requirement that they *must* do so. Bringing friends or interested parties into CDS by selling them one of your own parcels is, in itself, a perfectly acceptable and traditional way for new citizens to arrive; the potential ( or past) abuse of that is the price we pay for expecting that our citizens behave ethically and for having extremely low requirements for citizenship and running for office.

I would guess that those who originally set the 28 day requirement and the honour system regarding this behaviour never expected that anyone would have such low self-esteem, or be so desperate for some level of power and influence over something in their life, that they would invest money in manipulating an election for a virtual seat or seats in a virtual government in a virtual world; that someone might do so out of sheer malevolence- in effect griefing a whole community on an epic scale- probably didn't cross their minds.

Personally I think a solution would be to increase the time required to attain full citizenship to 60 days, not to exclude people from participating, but to ensure that they intend to do so for longer than a six week election cycle and to give them time to attend some meetings and become familiar with the Constitution, laws and workings of CDS government. In addition, it would make it that much more expensive to 'buy' a seat or seats on RA if someone intended to do so. That, however, is a totally different thing to consider

Perhaps Bagheera and Sudane can comment on whether creating a land-for-sale list would be an easy task, and whether administering it would be an unreasonable amount of work. Maybe it is something a volunteer could handle.

Calli

[AbbyRose]

My opinion is that we all have to be careful about reforming land sales. We lose our rights as land owners if all land for sale goes onto a waiting list. We would become nothing more then CDS renters. As it is now, one avatar/person/group can own up to eight parcels.
Am I correct in saying that?
Secondly, it would prevent people from using adjacent properties to create something together. The Bath comes to mind. Lam and I adjoined those properties. He did sell me his parcel since, but forcing people to sell to another on a waiting list would prevent me from selling Lam's parcel back to him if we ever did decide to work together again. All parcels for sale going onto a waiting list is a bad idea. Abandoned parcels for sale on a waiting list seems fair.
As far as the idea of people having paid people to move to CDS because of elections seems somewhat ridiculous to me. I bought my land and I pay my tiers, and I was with others that I brought to CDS who did the same, ie. Molly, Tandra, Nic, Lam, and now Colt. A few of us did come during Oktoberfest. It was actually Delia and Tor that showed us around during the house tour. We didn't know about any elections at that time. We came for the community and friendships. I digress, but think it is time that fact is made clear.
I'd be more concerned over citizens owning land as two avatars, and voting twice because they either have two avatars or are give use of someone else's.....ie. Pip/Astrix, which goes against CDS rules, or LL TOS, whichever way he wants to take it. I have asked him to "come clean" for months now. I was not happy about him putting me in the position of knowing and did speak to several in the gov about this situation.
Thank you, AbbyRose

[Tor Karlsvalt]

I would agree with Abby. A waiting list could be instituted by the executive, imo. It would facilitate finding people for parcels in times such as these, when our parcels seem to limited. I would not want to be cornered into a waiting list, however; even if we find multiple parcels vacant. It would be a waist of the Chancellor's time to maintain a waiting list and be obligated to contact the list every time a new parcel opened up as people wait for a particular parcel to become free and the map full of yellow.

Also, I agree, the list should apply only to abandoned parcels owned by the CDS. Private sales should not have to follow the list.

[cleopatraxigalia]

I agree with tor and abby that we should have a waiting list for government land sales but i think it should be an always visible public document. I believe it should be held outside of the chancellors office. This reform leading to more transparency is a.positive move and should result in at least two things

Total. transparency in land sales

Decreased discretion by the government as to who and when to open land and lock parcels. This needs to be an action either way that is dictated by law and not the chancellors total discretion as it is now. .

Reformation in land sales needs to be looked at as a.total package and should include a strict adherence to a time frame for parcels in arrears with no chancellor discretion this should be a uniform code with full transparency.

Detailed public disclosure of not only the hippo boxes but the sale of the land itself by direct post of rudeens actual transaction log from linden lab monthly. The one on the linden account that owns the land. This way we can all see each and every land sale from the government. The avatar names not removed.

An elected assistant treasure. And a succession plan for the Treasurer

I will volunteer to head up a committee to reform land sales and make the process transparent and fair and reducing the amount of chancellor discretion. I'd like to have rose springvale and delia lake.any available former chancellors. Sonja Strom and Jamie Palisades on the committee with me
A.series of town hall meetings

This would be a good time also to consider we reduce the amount of land each avatar can hold down from 8 parcels and stated number of Sq m. I would cut this in half at least and not grandfather in the few people who currently hold huge estates in cds. Let's give them a reasonable time fee to come into compliance with the new law.

[Bagheera]

Speaking NOT as Chancellor, but as a private citizen with my single vote, my private feelings about this are that Cleo's proposal goes too far...because it is an invasion of private citizens' privacy. I like my privacy, not because I have anything to hide, but because I am a very sensitive person and when someone puts their attention me, I "feel" it. You could say this is part of my spiritual beliefs. I am not proselytizing - however I do have the right to my own beliefs and to shape the way I live my life to accommodate my beliefs, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else. So, privacy for me is something I value greatly.

Last month, just as a friendly aside, someone remarked to me that I was behind on my parcel in LA because they could see that from the Hippo. (I was behind less than a day, if it matters) In our old system, this kind of information was private - between a citizen and the land administrators. I tried to take it lightly, but it actually really bugged me...bugged me a lot.

On Gwyn's blog, she wrote an insightful post a while back about the difference between SL - which still protects its participants' privacy - and something like Facebook or Twitter or Google+, which datamines our personal information and makes it public. SL is still the kind of place that will attract people who favor being private and since CDS is part of SL, I think we need to also honor the desire of private citizens to not have their actions broadcast publicly - including their financial transactions and land purchases. That is my feeling. It is also the way our old system of land management worked and, to my knowledge, has never been legislated to be different - it was just a weakness of the Hippo system (or our unfamiliarity with it) that made this information inadvertently public. (and yes, in real life, in America, once I bought a house, all sorts of information about me became public & I didn't like it one bit.. I would hope to NOT have to feel the same way about my Second Life)

Right now, our system is set up so that, once a parcel is abandoned, it immediately - automatically - is put for sale to whoever gets to it first. Our system requires that land ownership is through purchase of the parcel - not paying the Hippo - so if you or someone you know wants a piece of land for sale, please buy it using the About Land menu, then afterwards, to pay tier, pay the Hippo.

For Locus Amoenus and for new sims, yes, having a procedure for opening large, new chunks of land for sale would be great. I have mixed thoughts about waiting lists. In real life, my experience with waiting lists is that - since they come with no obligation on the part of people on them - people will get on the list "just in case" but when it comes time to buy, many say "Oh, I changed my mind". If we are going to have a waiting list, I'd want to require a nominal deposit (perhaps held and rolled over every month - so someone could lose their place in line and get their deposit back if they wanted or opt to stay in line and roll over their deposit) that would be applied towards purchase/tier.

I think - like any good business - there does need to be some discretion allowed and the Chancellor handles that, if someone besides the Chancellor should handle meting out mercy or giving the boot, fine.. except all you are doing is saying you have no-confidence in the Chancellor - and if you are handing that over to a private/appointed group, you've taken the vote of the citizens out of the decision-making process. Any system that has rigid punitive measures in place - historically - fails.. a little bit at first perhaps.. but ultimately - most, if not all, get repealed or are in the process of being repealed.

What I would like to see, in terms of reforming land sales/ownership:

1. change the current limitation to owning 8 parcels of no more than 8152m total per individual .. to strike the 8 parcel limitation and just limit ownership to no more than 8152m per individual
2. group owned land - limitation to ownership divided equally among members that are publicly disclosed in the About Group menu - (for example - a group that just shows the owner name - the Owner can own up to 8152m land which would include what they hold privately and what they hold for the group...a group that publicly shows the owner name and 9 member names - can own up to 81,520 meters which would include what each of those 10 avatars holds privately combined with what they hold for the group...private holdings could not go over 8152m per member)
3. if/when CDS is running in the red, the Chancellor has a fiduciary duty to report* and justify their decisions to the RA if, for example, they took parcels off the market or were being exceptionally lenient with a tardy tier-payment. (*since transactions are private, the RA might not know to ask, it would be incumbent on the Chancellor to report, not just wait until asked)

[cleopatraxigalia]

[quote="Bagheera"]Speaking NOT as Chancellor, but as a private citizen with my single vote, my private feelings about this are that Cleo's proposal goes too far...because it is an invasion of private citizens' privacy. I like my privacy, not because I have anything to hide, but because I am a very sensitive person and when someone puts their attention me, I "feel" it. You could say this is part of my spiritual beliefs. I am not proselytizing - however I do have the right to my own beliefs and to shape the way I live my life to accommodate my beliefs, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else. So, privacy for me is something I value greatly.

Last month, just as a friendly aside, someone remarked to me that I was behind on my parcel in LA because they could see that from the Hippo. (I was behind less than a day, if it matters) In our old system, this kind of information was private - between a citizen and the land administrators. I tried to take it lightly, but it actually really bugged me...bugged me a lot.

On Gwyn's blog, she wrote an insightful post a while back about the difference between SL - which still protects its participants' privacy - and something like Facebook or Twitter or Google+, which datamines our personal information and makes it public. SL is still the kind of place that will attract people who favor being private and since CDS is part of SL, I think we need to also honor the desire of private citizens to not have their actions broadcast publicly - including their financial transactions and land purchases. That is my feeling. It is also the way our old system of land management worked and, to my knowledge, has never been legislated to be different - it was just a weakness of the Hippo system (or our unfamiliarity with it) that made this information inadvertently public. (and yes, in real life, in America, once I bought a house, all sorts of information about me became public & I didn't like it one bit.. I would hope to NOT have to feel the same way about my Second Life)

I am a bit confused about EXACTLY what you think should be information only for a few members of CDS to see. So private except for who? can you list the items of information and say who DOES get to know?

What you call your right to privacy , I call transparency in government. What information precisely do you only want certain people in the government to know. Or in other words, what part of your payments to the government do you want private ?

I want to answer the rest of your post, after you are more specific about what should be public information and what we have a right to have private.. How much a person pays for a parcel they buy from the government? How much tier they pay to the hippo? How long the parcel is in arrears ?

Just wondering more details.

[Bagheera]

IMHO, there is a dramatic difference between calling for "transparency in government" and calling for the release of all transaction data between private citizens and CDS. I know privacy seems a quaint idea in these times, nevertheless, it wasn't that long ago that it was taken seriously. It began to be taken less seriously when storing and aggregating data became profitable and easy. A starting point for guidelines might be found here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... -final.pdf

Item 3 is notable, it reads, in part:

"RESPECT FOR CONTEXT: Consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data. Companies should limit their use and disclosure of personal data to those purposes that are consistent with both the relationship that they have with consumers and the context in which consumers originally disclosed the data,

[cleopatraxigalia]

I agree with you bagheera that there is a dramatic difference in transparency in government and disclosure of personal information. In cds our ability to vote in elections is based solely on our ownership of land and the timing of paying our tier. No personal information other than that should be disclosed. But also it is inappropriate IMHO for there to be a matter of discretion by an any govt official about who is on and off the voting list. This should be IMHO a fair and uniform set of guidelines that everyone follows with the same results and consequences for all.

I respectfully agree with your concern about privacy in general and i applaud you for that concern and willingness to protect rights, but I wonder if you have inadvertently attached this notion to a crucial element of transparency our government requires to remain fair and Protect All citizens in the future.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Bagheera. You bring up another important issue in your post and that is what legislation interacted with the hippo system. There was a law in the past around the requirement of an avatar to be in world at least one time per month to touch the old payment boxes. When was that law changed ? And has it been enforced since the hippo boxes now allow for one to pay for 90 days at a time.

[Rosie Gray]

I agree with tor and abby that we should have a waiting list for government land sales but i think it should be an always visible public document. I believe it should be held outside of the chancellors office. This reform leading to more transparency is a.positive move and should result in at least two things

Having a waiting list for government land sales would be a nightmare to maintain. You would have, as someone said already, people signing up for it 'just in case' and then whoever was managing this (likely the Chancellor), would have to go through that list contacting people, waiting for responses, etc. I don't see this as very practical although I don't mind the idea in theory.

Total. transparency in land sales

Decreased discretion by the government as to who and when to open land and lock parcels. This needs to be an action either way that is dictated by law and not the chancellors total discretion as it is now. .

I think that the Chancellor needs to maintain discretion as to when it's necessary to lock or open land sales. In a community such as ours, there will be times when there is a necessity for such, and having to go through a process for approval every time a parcel needs to be locked or unlocked, again seems unnecessary and impractical. Our Chancellor is elected, and so we live with what she/he chooses to do. I don't always agree, but that's democracy and that's how it works in the real world.

We could perhaps think about an exception to this if we are thinking of redoing a sim or if the Chancellor wants to lock down more than a specific amount of land , such as has been the case with LA, and half the sim needs to be locked down. Perhaps in that case it should be reviewed and approved by the RA. This would alleviate any misunderstandings afterwards like the ones we've been experiencing with this sim redo. We could even think about setting a maximum on each sim that the Chancellor has discretion over locking/unlocking before they need approval from the RA.

Reformation in land sales needs to be looked at as a.total package and should include a strict adherence to a time frame for parcels in arrears with no chancellor discretion this should be a uniform code with full transparency.

I agree with this, although I don't see a need to have it publicized to the general public. I think the Chancellor and the gov't knowing would be enough.

Detailed public disclosure of not only the hippo boxes but the sale of the land itself by direct post of rudeens actual transaction log from linden lab monthly. The one on the linden account that owns the land. This way we can all see each and every land sale from the government. The avatar names not removed.

We can already see the change of land ownerships. There is no need to see the actual transcation record and I think this would be a violation of privacy.

An elected assistant treasure. And a succession plan for the Treasurer

A succession plan for the Treasurer is an interesting idea that we should talk about. I don't know if we need an elected Assistant Treasurer... what we need is someone with that expertise willing to donate their time - and whom the Treasurer is okay to work with.

I will volunteer to head up a committee to reform land sales and make the process transparent and fair and reducing the amount of chancellor discretion. I'd like to have rose springvale and delia lake.any available former chancellors. Sonja Strom and Jamie Palisades on the committee with me
A.series of town hall meetings

This is something that you should bring up for discussion in the RA and would need to be voted on.

This would be a good time also to consider we reduce the amount of land each avatar can hold down from 8 parcels and stated number of Sq m. I would cut this in half at least and not grandfather in the few people who currently hold huge estates in cds. Let's give them a reasonable time fee to come into compliance with the new law.

I don't think we need to reduce the amount of land each avatar can hold, but it might make sense to make it a sq. m rather than a number of parcels.

[cleopatraxigalia]

transparency in land sales ...

and in who is in arrears .... how long it takes to get your parcel taken from you .. do you get to be in arrears and still have the land for sale to you ? or is it taken when it's for sale and in arrears.. anything to do with land and a sale by the government. .. how much parcels sell for.. when tier is paid ... Is something that needs in my humble opinion to be public information.

the people who need this to be transparent are not US the govt.. its the citizens.

the system should be open and transparent .. with defined rules that apply to each and every citizen the same.

"faith " in the chancellor to do what is right as far as dealing with things that lead to who can vote him or her in or out of office.. or the people in the ra ..... this is not a democracy.

If land sales are corruptable, then voting is invalid.

I am not accusing any present or past chancellor of this corruption, but I would like to have a system where it is not possible. Or at least that we can all .. all citizens... see if it happens. If i recall, this was something Jamie talked about .. a great chancellor .. cds is fine.
a rougue chancellor ... and cds is in trouble.. why would we want to sit and let this vulnerability exist?

the people who need to be watching the goverment officials to see if they are doing their job correctly, is not other goverment officials. but the citizens themselves. and when, like now that information is hidden or discretionary then we have a "system" ripe for corruptoin.

there is really no valid comparison to rl privacy issues and cds land sales transparency . not in my opinion anyway.. it might "feel" the same to someone, but its not really the samem at all..

land equals votes

we should all have complete knowledge of what happens with the goverments role in land sales and ownership and it should always be a fair process that sets forth equal protection to everyone.. MINORITY groups especially ... ( new people). i see no reason that a person should have preference in being able to vote because they have been in cds longer. rules need to be fair and equitible .

[Pip Torok]

Our current mechanisms for selling land (and thereby establishing citizenship) are open to abuse. It is possible with our current rules for individuals or groups to control access to land sales and thereby to citizenship in the CDS. The way this works is to buy up plots of land whenever they become free and then control who purchases them by only selling (or giving) them to your friends and supporters. In this way, someone who would fail to gain political support by appealing to the current citizens can build a power base by controlling access to newcomers.

These sales are all recorded on the landscanner here.

I think we could find a way to prevent this kind of abuse which would also make the CDS a genuinely open society. One solution would be to hold a 'waiting list' for parcels in the CDS with the Chancellor. When parcels are abandoned, or when citizens are considering selling their plot, the person at the head of the waiting list could be asked if they would be interested in the parcel. If they're not, you could go further down the list until you find someone who would like to take it. This would be the way that all abandoned parcels are dealt with but voluntary when citizens are thinking about selling. We would have to publicise this in order to raise awareness that this would be a way to sell your parcel.

We could go a step further and enforce the rule that all land sales are centralised in this way. That's probably a step too far for most people; I would have some concerns about it myself. But it would mean that people were genuine in coming to the CDS and make it more difficult to manipulate the electoral roll by 'gifting' land to friends and 'helping out' with tier in return for votes.

.
.
Let's get back to the very relevant point Pat started this thread with ....

The most urgent initial concern of any democracy ("rule of,by,for the people") is to decide who are the people ...

... as followers of Jesus and Mohammed in Egypt or Nigeria, and followers of Buddha and Mohammed in Indonesia or the Philippines have all found to their cost.

and our "people", simply put, should be an impartial set with a reasonable spread of opinions, but also with the patience, humour, and decency to accord to others' opinions the respect they demand for their own. With such a set, we have a future.

How do we get them? Here's one suggestion:

-- We make a point of visiting every sim that has some Technical Institute, University, or College.

-- We invite them, first to C.D.S., then subsequently to subscribe to this Forum, then strongly to encourage them to express their opinion here on all and every topic we touch upon.

-- We prioritise our central queue according to how they take this up. We would (I hope) favour those who write without fear or favour, are able to argue their corner, but who can listen to, then account for, opposing viewpoints.

Who gate-keeps the gatekeepers? That's the tough one .... one I'll leave with you!

'Freedom comes from human beings,
rather than from laws and institutions.

-- Clarence Darrow'

Pip Torok

[cleopatraxigalia]

Okay so let me get this straight, Pip.

You want to have a set of entrance criteria for coming to CDS and being a citizen that means..

1. a person who is a possible candidate for citizenship must be "found " or some how discovered by CDS in a sim with a university college or technical institute ..

2. the candidate for citizenship must then write on the forums and be "judged" to be competent enough in some way to be found appropriate to become a citizen.

3. the person, after meeting criteria 1 and 2 must be put on a waiting list of sorts when deemed appropriate for citizenship and then ranked for who gets the next parcel available per criteria that determines who is best suited based on their writing ability. In other words, the better one does on the the forum writing test the higher their ranking in the queue for land.

but, you are not sure exactly who should run this entrance criteria screening program, or who should gate keep the people who do ?

hmm.. let me think about this a while. pip says; " We would (I hope) favour those who write without fear or favour, are able to argue their corner, but who can listen to, then account for, opposing viewpoints."

Makes me think of a few things.

CLEOS TOP TEN LIST
REASONS WHY WE SHOULD DO WHAT PIP SUGGESTS ASAP

1. it would be so simple to run CDS if it only had oh what? five , ten citizens who all agreed on everything and loved being together.

2.if we make sure we are all likeminded to start with the issue of conflict resolution becomes a moot point

3. we would be able to definitely keep out the riff raff , no need to bother trying to get rid of anyone we don't like if we keep them coming in the first place..

4. how fun for the people of this homogeneous group to schmooze each other and talk intellectually about things, but, what on earth would they have to debate? the truth would always be self eviden

5. no need for any more pesky boring govt meetings everyone would be so smart they would just "know" what to do and what's best

6. we can be sure to screen for wealth also, so they can each have half a sim, pay 1/10th of the tier plus a tithe, ten citizens of the CDS would be plenty we can all sit back and relax then

7. the chancellor role could go round robin counter clockwise starting at the top right hand corner of alpine meadow

8. would be fun to tell everyone who lives here now that they should leave so we can let in the qualified people with plenty of money .. a "fair plan of land redistribution" would be cool to implement

9. if we can make sure the "gate keeper" is the right person then we will always have the right kind of person here in CDS

10. Most of our problems will disappear and everyone left can live in peace and harmony.

... cleo takes her tongue out of her cheek.