Draft Legislation for a Grievance Committee

[Spider22997]

I feel this could be compared to the Patriot Act, make them angry or use attacks to scare people into thinking more laws must be made to protect them from harm or words of hate, stop the constant targeting of fellow citizens with innuendoes and insinuations of wrong doing. Be sure to make the written law very long and beyond most citizens comprehension and then use it as you like.

Form a group and create a law to control the situation. Oh, NSA, hmm

Who would be on this panel of citizens to judge other citizens, where would it begin and end. He said, she said.. I believe the Communist Chinese have this type of leadership in their villages. Sort of a grievance committee.. hmm

Maybe we should purchase some drones for the community and have all chat and personal conversations within the community recorded and stored in a cloud.

[Patroklus Murakami]

We began to get to the heart of the matter at the inworld discussion session. There is a fundamental disagreement here around the degree to which the collective (the CDS community) can require conformity from the individual (a CDS citizen). Lam asks what would happen if people are behaving badly, annoying others and we only have a system of voluntary mediation? What if people refuse to moderate their behaviour? This has led him to propose an authoritarian solution - make them behave or expel them. I think there are other options.

First of all, we need to define what problem we are tying to solve. Lam has given the example of citizens who are engaged in a private dispute disrupting RA meetings and community events and drawing other people into their squabbles inworld and on the forums. I think we have a number of means to deal with this which do not require a Grievance Committee. In fact, we have tools to deal with the issue *as it happens* as opposed to *well after the event* (which would be when a Grievance Committee would finally get around to it).

If someone is disrupting an RA meeting the LRA should have the power to expel that person from the meeting. This is a relatively simple power to give someone in SL. I can chuck people out of my home if they annoy me, the LRA can be given a similar power. The LRA also needs to be prepared to use the power and we would want our citizens to be able to object if this was done arbitrarily which they can do by appealing the decision to the SC. Non-citizens could also do the same but, in practice, they usually don't bother.

We can do the same at events. Stewards can be given the power to expel people if they behave badly. It's really not a problem.

As for the forums and inworld events, we are all adults, aren't we? The SC moderate the forums and they have, historically, allowed for a great deal of freedom of expression and have been reluctant to censor our posts (except, in one notable case, where someone called for a government official to 'die, the sooner the better'). We could have a debate about whether the SC ought to be more interventionist - Lam could argue for more use of locked threads, temporary forum bans and other means to lower the temperature. I prefer to err on the side of free speech and like the current style of moderation. Again, the tools are there if we choose to use them.

I think the notion that we should have some heavy-handed court dispensing its wisdom on how people should comport themselves because 'it upsets other people to see citizens bickering' is a horrific authoritarian solution that is worse than the problem we are trying to solve. If you believe that Jos and I were engaged in a private dispute (over homophobic language) that should not have been brought to the forums or terminated earlier or whatever then.... you are entitled to your view. But you are not entitled to shut us up because it makes you uncomfortable. Similarly, there have been other less than edifying interactions between CDS citizens. Well, if you think that it's petty and you don't want to pick sides, butt out! We are exercising our right to free speech and that is a right which, in my view, we should be very wary of restraining.

[Lam Erin]

Pat brands "authoritarian" something that exists in every civilised society: a conflict resolution system where people can go to resolve their disputes or ask for protection from violations by other citizens.

This forum can take many forms and usually on top has a court. The existence of judiciary is essential in any society calling itself democratic. But I never proposed setting up a judiciary for CDS because I understand the challenges some people face though, on the other hand, I dont believe that there is democracy without judiciary...However when drafting the proposal i knew that many people didnt want a judiciary in CDS mostly because ghosts of the CDS past tell them it is not a good idea....I dont believe in ghosts, I dont fear them and I dont intend to let them shape my future but some people in CDS do and I will respect that..

So no court has been proposed.

There is though a fundamental constitutional requirement in CDS to protect the citizens and peace of the community from violations of their rights.

I used already some examples: concerned bing, long-lasting conflicts between CDS citizens which cause problems to the rest of the Community. Are there such conflicts in CDS? Yes there are and quie o few of them. I have been in CDS for 6 months and I have seen at least 3-4 such conflict. I dont want to use names because people will focus on the names and not on the substance but I definitely did not have in mind the Jos case.
It s not about the freedom of expression either. We are talking about private disputes..

I used an example where people hating each other who appear in public event creating problems also to others. The RA was one example...Ejecting them from the event doesnt resolve the problem...I have seen the ejection of a person, which just returned a few minutes later.

I have seen social events in cds private properties ending up in conflict between specific two individuals blowing up the whole event...People started tping out appalled by the dogfights.

There have also been people in CDS who have been bullied, harassed, defamed by other citizens.

Persons who have left cds, people who have come to me telling me they were crying.

CDS has currently has no effective tool of listening to people who face real issues in sl..

The use of a voluntary scheme solves the problem only partly....It will work only if the warring parties want to resolve it in this way..
But from the conflicts I have witnessed none of the warring parties seem to want to resolve it through voluntary mediation.Personal egos dont allow them to go to anybody who will help hem to find solutions.

The question is what CDS does about it....Is currently CDS a nice place to live in?
I seriously doubt. This is why I believe many people feel alienated from CDS...

They dont feel CDS is about them...In the last elections many citizens noted rightly the problem that most citizens of cds are not engaged...There is a passive, quiet majority sitting on the sidelines of CDS. Candidates in the elections were asked what they would do to reach and engage these people...

Do we think that the current climate in CDS helps to engage them?
I doubt...

The fundamental problem we have to deal with is that when there is a problem in CDS there is noone to help resolve...In democracies problems appear often. This is part of life. This is why all organised and civilised societies have forums for resolving problems. CDS doesnt...

I proposed one and I hear it is aurhoritarian...Without explanation..

It is I guess authoritarian to have a forum which will ask a bully (without punishing) to stop bullying. It is equally authoritarian I guess to have two people trading ugly insults to each other in front of other citizens and faling to listen to the others to bring them to a body,which will ask them to take their conflict outside of CDS.

On the other hand you have the constitution of CDS which requires that CDS bodies should uphold the Community Standards one of which the right of citizens to have peaceful enjoyment in CDS. How does the current system helps protect this right of the citizens...

How does the current system protect the victims of bullying, harassment, defamation etc?

If there are tools I would expect to see them being used. I dont see this..

People come to cds to have fun and socialise in a relax environment and they end up feeling disgusted most of them...
When I joined CDS i was asked not always in a friendly tone who brought me here...

Later I found out that there were camps in cds and wars were going on behind the scenes...These things have to stop I believe or at least if people involved dont want to stop them,
CDS has to do something about it. If not, as I said earlier, CDS is not a place worth living. Sme will challenge that latter view and I dont blame them...

Views vary depending on the standards each person considers as acceptable for their lives. Some person like starting their day with a fight with their much hated neighbour.
Others like bullying the ld lady living next door.
There are all kinds of people in this crazy world we live in.
In first life we cant always avoid these crazies.
But in Second life we have an opportunity to do so...

HAving a forum where people can resolve their disputes or protect their right to have fun and to relax is in my view essential.
They name or type of this forum is not my concern..It Can be called leizure committee, or lovers paradise forum. The issue is that something has o be done because CDS at the moment simply sucks!

[Victor1]

On the other hand you have the constitution of CDS which requires that CDS bodies should uphold the Community Standards one of which the right of citizens to have peaceful enjoyment in CDS. How does the current system helps protect this right of the citizens...

Protected by http://lindenlab.com/tos

How does the current system protect the victims of bullying, harassment, defamation etc?

Protected by http://lindenlab.com/tos

If there are tools I would expect to see them being used. I don't see this..

Mute, kick and ban from parcel.

Pat is essentially right. All residents, has to answer to the REAL "Grievance Committee"...that committee is called Linden Lab. They are impartial, they have no stake in any single set of regions, no stake in any single resident and they are the perfect Judge & Jury.

If someone for instance puts an AR on me...and I simply log in the next day, it means that the AR filed against me was a load of absolute crap. If someone files an AR against me, and I CANT log in the next day due to a suspension or even a ban, then I was in the wrong.

In my 7 years of SL, I have only been suspended once, for 24 hours, and even then Harry Linden sent me an email saying It was because of a "technicality" and wouldn't be on my avatars record...the person who filed that AR? He ended up getting banned the following week for greifing or some-such thing, to be honest i cant remember what it was when I filled out the AR against him. Point is, there is already an unbiased, beyond reproach judicial system in place for Second Life and the CDS. Its called the Terms of Service. I would count the "Community Guidelines" by Linden Lab as well but those are not "rules".

The ToS, and ToS alone is what governs the 26,000+ regions that make up the grid, its worked fine for more than 10 years.

If someone does something wrong... AR them, let the Lab deal with it. If it is a real offence, then the person causing the problem gets an email from the Lab warning them, an email informing them of suspension, or an email informing them that they have been banned.

[Cadence Theas]

Hi Vic and Pat,

In rl, I live in a closed rural neighborhood, a gated community of 60 houses, and among the different committees is one called the committee for co-living. Its function is to resolve disputes and conflicts between neighbors that are not necessarily covered in the norms of the state or the statutes of the neighborhood. It is a recourse that we use to ensure that the rest of the people living in the neighborhood do not have to live out the conflict in which they have no direct involvement.

The purpose of the grievance committee is not the “heavy-handed court” as was alleged, nor is it a court at all. It is a tool that sensible citizens have to mitigate conflicts or disputes that affect not only the disputants, but the rest of us.

I am distressed somewhat at the misinterpretations of the intent of the grievance committee which is neither authoritarian nor yet another level of judicial bureaucracy. It is simply a social tool that enables sensible citizens to say to others that their behavior is disrupting the well-being of everyone else. Nothing more. A tool for co-living. I don’t understand why this idea--co-living--has to be ridiculed here in the forum.

The statement that we are all “adults” is belied somewhat by the tones and terms that are used in this forum, or in some of the daily interaction in CDS, which although they do not necessarily violate the LL TOS, do make CDS at times unbearable.

The people that are nay-saying the grievance committee and suggesting that the LL TOS is sufficient mechanism to control unsocial behavior forget that the LL TOS has not worked in CDS. And the adage that “if the same behavior produces the same negative results, maybe it is time to change the behavior for different results” is appropriate here. The forum is not a pleasant read, people still manifest their dislike of others in ways that make others not involved uncomfortable. Why do we insist in making the same mistakes and not try other means to make co-living in CDS much easier.

How are the nay-sayers making CDS more enjoyable or livable?

That is the challenge we all face.

Cadence

[Lam Erin]

Vic, that's for Linden Lab not for the individual groups.

All groups in Second Life have rules and have methods of dealing with member disputes or with the troublemakers. I am sure your groups have rules too and if people cause trouble you dont wait for LL to act. And I am referring to group-controlled areas not to land controlled by individuals.

CDS is one of the few groups I have seen in Sl which have no formal method of dealing with member conflicts. This is what we are proposing to create: a structured, transparent and permanent way of resolving member conflicts.

In most inworld groups the group owners just kick out of the group the trouble makers. We dont want that. But on the other we dont want individual conflicts to tarnish the whole CDS for a prolonged period as it has often happened.

And I personally believe that many individuals in CDS exploit the absence of any reaction by the Community to generate or prolong conflicts.
Something has to be done about it. I am personally open to any proposals for dealing with such issues as long as they are effective. Waiting LL to act is not one of those ways.

[Victor1]

Cadence... then what you are referring to is something similar to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa after the abolition of Apartheid. Sort of like a "Peace Commission". Those types of set ups are voluntary. The commissions can call upon a person to appear, it is up to the person wether they appear or not.

What is originally said in page one of this thread... is a court system...the opening paragraph starts off great, inline with any sort of local authority Peace Commision...

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.

However then there is this...

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.

Using the science council as a referral coupled with recommendations by the Grievance Committee and then the mention of "banishment"

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.

A penalty for "non compliance".

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)..

Mentions of collection of "evidence".

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.

"failure to comply with its recommendation or with the settlement agreed" then a mention of being referred to the SC for "imposition of sanctions". The Greviance Committee itself is the Jury... you are using the SC as the JUDGE.

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.

Again, not following the Grievance Committee decision, the Committee will issue a final warning. If that is ignored the Greivance Committee (Jury) will report to the Judge (Scientific Council) for "sanctions".

I'm sorry Cadence...this is a judge and jury set up, no matter what way it is sugar coated. The Grievance Committee is the Jury, and the Scientific Council is the Judge. It is a court system, just broke up between two different groups within CDS itself. The mere fact that the original draft for it mentions collecting evidence from both sides, then passing the Grievance Committee's finding to the Scientific Council with recommendations for imposition of sanctions means its a court system.

The evidence is looked at by the Greivance Committee, and the findings is passed to the Scientific Council to deliberate and pass judgement on.

I dont know about anyone else... but thats a Judge and Jury set up right there.

[Victor1]

Vic, that's for Linden Lab not for the individual groups.

All groups in Second Life have rules and have methods of dealing with member disputes or with the troublemakers. I am sure your groups have rules too and if people cause trouble you dont wait for LL to act. And I am referring to group-controlled areas not to land controlled by individuals.

CDS is one of the few groups I have seen in Sl which have no formal method of dealing with member conflicts. This is what we are proposing to create: a structured, transparent and permanent way of resolving member conflicts.

In most inworld groups the group owners just kick out of the group the trouble makers. We dont want that. But on the other we dont want individual conflicts to tarnish the whole CDS for a prolonged period as it has often happened.

And I personally believe that many individuals in CDS exploit the absence of any reaction by the Community to generate or prolong conflicts.
Something has to be done about it. I am personally open to any proposals for dealing with such issues as long as they are effective. Waiting LL to act is not one of those ways.

The LL ToS covers EVERYTHING. Not just groups, not just individuals, not just regions...everything.

I run a Doctor Who group, it has over 3500 members. If someone causes a problem i Abuse Report them. I'm one of the admins of New Babbage, if someone causes a problem, i abuse report them. In MOST (i grant you not all) cases the Lab respond within the hour. If it is a real problem like a greifer, I automatically kick them from the group and ban them from land. If its a troll skirting around the ToS, the community itself generally mutes and ignores said person to such an extent they get the hint.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Cadence, Lam

I don't think you are listening to the feedback you are getting on your proposal. You have had push back from the community on your proposal in relation to the aspects of compulsion and compulsory arbitration. Several people have said they would prefer voluntary mediation but you persist with your original proposal and you don't seem to be open to argument around it. This feels, once again, like history repeating itself. Ashcroft also went away and developed what he thought we needed and then refused to listen to any feedback he got from the community on what we really didn't like about his proposals. So, I'm not going to waste too much time here trying to persuade you to make changes when there seems to be no willingness to do so.

As for the "it's not a court" argument, Vic has pretty much demolished that one! I'll just say that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck… it's probably a duck! Your proposal walks like a court, looks like a court and quacks like a court… it's a court.

As for the "CDS is not a democracy without a judiciary" well, in that case we haven't been a democracy all of the past 8, 9 or 10 years we have been around. Here's to ten more! Lam uses the argument that you need a judiciary to guarantee democracy in meatspace and then misapplies this argument to SL. There is no need for a judiciary in Second Life, none. Unlike RL, you can't steal my property (except perhaps IP but, there are ways around that), you can't assault me (at least not in any way which does damage) and if you annoy me I can mute you, ban you from my land and effectively avoid you. If you behave really badly, there is the Abuse Report system.

[Lam Erin]

Cadence... then what you are referring to is something similar to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa after the abolition of Apartheid. Sort of like a "Peace Commission". Those types of set ups are voluntary. The commissions can call upon a person to appear, it is up to the person wether they appear or not.

What is originally said in page one of this thread... is a court system...the opening paragraph starts off great, inline with any sort of local authority Peace Commision...

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.

However then there is this...

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.

Using the science council as a referral coupled with recommendations by the Grievance Committee and then the mention of "banishment"

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.

A penalty for "non compliance".

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)..

Mentions of collection of "evidence".

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.

"failure to comply with its recommendation or with the settlement agreed" then a mention of being referred to the SC for "imposition of sanctions". The Greviance Committee itself is the Jury... you are using the SC as the JUDGE.

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.

Again, not following the Grievance Committee decision, the Committee will issue a final warning. If that is ignored the Greivance Committee (Jury) will report to the Judge (Scientific Council) for "sanctions".

I'm sorry Cadence...this is a judge and jury set up, no matter what way it is sugar coated. The Grievance Committee is the Jury, and the Scientific Council is the Judge. It is a court system, just broke up between two different groups within CDS itself. The mere fact that the original draft for it mentions collecting evidence from both sides, then passing the Grievance Committee's finding to the Scientific Council with recommendations for imposition of sanctions means its a court system.

The evidence is looked at by the Greivance Committee, and the findings is passed to the Scientific Council to deliberate and pass judgement on.

I dont know about anyone else... but thats a Judge and Jury set up right there.

Vic,

The word evidence is used not only in courts but also in Committees, voluntary mediations etc. All these bodies are working on the basis of evidence. So the use of word evidence does not indicate courts.

In the real world the decisions of voluntary schemes (arbitration, voluntary or binding mediation, reconciliation etc) are accepted by Courts and enforced by Courts if need be. Even if the scheme is purely voluntary in many countries the Courts take a negative position against those who without a good reason ignore the recommendation of voluntary schemes).

What the draft does is to replicate what happens in the real world nothing more.

The compulsory scenario, I have explained clearly in the previous chapter, applies only in situations where warring parties continue to ignore or refuse to go to the voluntary scheme and with their behaviour continue to cause problems to the Community. Then the Community should have to do something to deal with the situation.
Of course they can always ignore the problem and let it resolve itself. They are not obliged to act anyway if they dont wish so..They are given though the right to do so if need be.

This is what it is all about and nothing more than this.

People like interpreting statement according to their wishes and not according to what is actually written.

[Lam Erin]

Vic, that's for Linden Lab not for the individual groups.

All groups in Second Life have rules and have methods of dealing with member disputes or with the troublemakers. I am sure your groups have rules too and if people cause trouble you dont wait for LL to act. And I am referring to group-controlled areas not to land controlled by individuals.

CDS is one of the few groups I have seen in Sl which have no formal method of dealing with member conflicts. This is what we are proposing to create: a structured, transparent and permanent way of resolving member conflicts.

In most inworld groups the group owners just kick out of the group the trouble makers. We dont want that. But on the other we dont want individual conflicts to tarnish the whole CDS for a prolonged period as it has often happened.

And I personally believe that many individuals in CDS exploit the absence of any reaction by the Community to generate or prolong conflicts.
Something has to be done about it. I am personally open to any proposals for dealing with such issues as long as they are effective. Waiting LL to act is not one of those ways.

The LL ToS covers EVERYTHING. Not just groups, not just individuals, not just regions...everything.

I run a Doctor Who group, it has over 3500 members. If someone causes a problem i Abuse Report them. I'm one of the admins of New Babbage, if someone causes a problem, i abuse report them. In MOST (i grant you not all) cases the Lab respond within the hour. If it is a real problem like a greifer, I automatically kick them from the group and ban them from land. If its a troll skirting around the ToS, the community itself generally mutes and ignores said person to such an extent they get the hint.

My experience of LL is not the same. They respond only if the case involves griefers an this only if the case is serious....
On other cases including member disputes like the ones we discuss here I havent usually seen any response from LL.

I have a feeling you are sharing the same view and this is why you are asking in your restaurant any case of harassment to be reported to your email. Otherwise a mere report by the injured party to LL would be enough.

In any case CDS never does anything about these disputes and CDS ends up being a very unpleasant place. We feel we need to do something about it. If there is a better idea as I said many times we are willing to listen to it. The use of Abuse Reports in my view is not effective especially in cases where a problem may involved disputes where both parties may have a fair share of blame.
I havent seen Lindens wasting their time dealing with these issues or else they would have to deal with thousands of complaints daily.

[Cadence Theas]

Hi Pat,

Actually, I am listening. Let me clarify some points:

1) The document that was presented is only a FIRST rough draft, one that hopefully will be rewritten several times so that all or most concerns are addressed.

2) What the consultation process entails is not only changes to the document itself, but also to ascertain how much people think that a body (social, governmental, or whatever) could make living in CDS more agreeable.

3) Vic’s position is clear that the LL TOS is sufficient mechanism, but what I have not been able to ascertain is if you in principle think that it would be possible to create an intervention that would eliminate some, not all, of the conflict and tension in CDS. If the answer is yes, then help us to rewrite the document so that it becomes more useful as a social tool. If the answer is no, then I will stop trying to convince you

Please let me know how you view the idea in principle (and not the first draft of the proposal), and what you would like to see in that idea so that it works.

Thank you,

Cadence

[Spider22997]

In regards to the Communist Chinese having a grievance committee, I believe that to be on the committee you must be a member in good standing of the Communist Party, so how shall it be here, how shall we find citizens for this committee will it be a Coven, or maybe a circle of friends, those that speak the loudest for control of its citizens shall have preference?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Lam Erin]

Cadence, Lam

I don't think you are listening to the feedback you are getting on your proposal. You have had push back from the community on your proposal in relation to the aspects of compulsion and compulsory arbitration. Several people have said they would prefer voluntary mediation but you persist with your original proposal and you don't seem to be open to argument around it. This feels, once again, like history repeating itself. Ashcroft also went away and developed what he thought we needed and then refused to listen to any feedback he got from the community on what we really didn't like about his proposals. So, I'm not going to waste too much time here trying to persuade you to make changes when there seems to be no willingness to do so.

As for the "it's not a court" argument, Vic has pretty much demolished that one! I'll just say that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck… it's probably a duck! Your proposal walks like a court, looks like a court and quacks like a court… it's a court.

As for the "CDS is not a democracy without a judiciary" well, in that case we haven't been a democracy all of the past 8, 9 or 10 years we have been around. Here's to ten more! Lam uses the argument that you need a judiciary to guarantee democracy in meatspace and then misapplies this argument to SL. There is no need for a judiciary in Second Life, none. Unlike RL, you can't steal my property (except perhaps IP but, there are ways around that), you can't assault me (at least not in any way which does damage) and if you annoy me I can mute you, ban you from my land and effectively avoid you. If you behave really badly, there is the Abuse Report system.

Pat,

You are accusing us of not listening when you are the one who not only doesnt listen but you also doesn't READ!! In the previous page immediately after the meeting I summarised the key points from the first meeting and I said that the main issues raised in the first group will be presented in the next meetings. These issues were the following:

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.

These issues will be raised in the next meeting where we hope to have in attendance also new people.

Any amendments will be made after we have received feedback from as many citizens as possible. Then we will amend accordingly. So far we are still in the collection process.

As for the other things you say:

I dont know what you had in CDS before and I dont know Aschroft. What I know from the past six months I have been in CD is that it is an ugly place for a person to live in. Personal disputes are all over the place. Citizens are accusing each other of harassment, bullying, homophobia and all kind of things. Citizens are trading accusations, insults etc.

Social or other events of cds which were supposed to be used to bring citizens together and offer some relaxing moments are often ruined by personal conflicts. People have left CDS for such reasons.

You say there are tools available to resolve those problems. Where are these and why we cant see them being used?
Banning a person from your land is not a solution when the offences take place in public land or in chat.
Mutting is a solution but does not offer protection in case conflict continues indirectly (the muted person tours cds spreading unsubstantiated or false accusation around about you.

In your view I guess people should get on with those behaviours. Well some do by leaving CDS. If this is what we want we can leave the things as they are...

Finally yes, there is no democracy in CDS.
CDS claims that it is a virtual experiment of democratic organisation. If t really is then it needs to have a conflict resolution mechanism. That is what democracies have.
As I said earlier if there isnt such mechanism there is no democracy...As simple as that. It can be anything else than that.

I dont know what was happening before but if CDS was like what we see today, it is truely not a democratic organisation. Democracy is not just the holding of elections to elect a few representatives. This is not the essence of democracy. The essence of democracy is to the existence of citizens with equal rights, which are protected by the Community for all citizens. Does CDS have it right now?

You never referred to any article of the CDS constitution so far in your answers. Do you accept the CDS constitution or not?
You declared in previous posts that you dont want anybody to tell you how to behave and that you dont intend to go to any Committee in case of dispute. Then you said that you are favouring a pure voluntary scheme.
Are you going to go to that Committee or is it a proposal for "others" to use?

[Lam Erin]

In regards to the Communist Chinese having a grievance committee, I believe that to be on the committee you must be a member in good standing of the Communist Party, so how shall it be here, how shall we find citizens for this committee will it be a Coven, or maybe a circle of friends, those that speak the loudest for control of its citizens shall have preference?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Good points which though have nothing to do with what we are talking about...
There is no Communism here as nobody came and nobody is going to come for you. All democracies have ways of resolving conflict. From ancient Athens to modern democracies all have conflict resolution schemes.Nowhere in the world will you find democracy without a place to resolve your disputes.

The question about the membership is a valid one and it is open to discussion.