Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03 Version 2.1

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Added Calli's proposed changes to make more notifications:

Clarification of the Land Sales Reclamation Act (NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03) (Version 2.1)

Preamble

CDSL 13-03, which amends NL 9-2, establishes the procedures by which citizens, defaulting their payments, become delinquent, partially lose their citizenship, and finally cease to be citizens.

CDSL 13-03 worked under the assumption that (a) either citizens just have a single parcel or (b) there is a mechanism allowing to pay for all parcels simultaneously at the same date. The current system allows different parcels to be held by the same citizen, and each parcel's tier can be due at different dates. Fortunately, the writing of CDSL 13-03 is almost able to deal with the current system, and this bill just makes the following changes, for the sake of clarification:

Amend point 1 to read:

Citizens of CDS are expected to pay tier rentals to the CDS Treasurer in a timely fashion. Payment is to be done automatically, either via specific in-world devices design to collect citizen's payments, or similar mechanisms employing a web-based application. All money collected from tier is to be sent directly to the Treasurer (or a special tier-receiving account just created for the purpose of collecting tier). The due dates for tier are automatically processed by whatever mechanism is implemented and also automatically announced to the landowners by Instant Message, email, or another similar mechanism. In the case of a device failure, it is the responsibility of the Treasurer to make the required announcements manually.

On point 2, where it says:

... when they have failed to pay tier rental...

amend to read:

... when they have failed to pay tier rental for any of the parcels currently held under their name...

On point 2, remove:

... (which may be by IM or notecard) ...

And add instead to the end of point 2:

Notifications shall be made by at least Instant Message and sending the citizen a notecard, and additionally also via another, more reliable mechanisms of notification, like email (if available), private messages on the forums, or any similar mechanism where delivery is more guaranteed.

On point 3, where it says:

...who has failed timely to pay rental tier...

amend to read:

...who has failed timely to pay rental tier for all of the parcels currently held under their name...

Also on point 3, where it says:

... The citizen shall receive a notice (by IM or notecard) advising her or him ...

amend to read

... The citizen shall receive a notice (using the same mechanisms established on point 2) advising her or him ...

Amend point 5 to read:

Fourteen days after the due date on any of the parcels held by the landowner, if the landowner has continued to fail to pay the full amount then overdue to CDS for those parcels, then the Chancellor shall reclaim all parcels in arrears owned by the landowner. The reclaimed parcels are to be set for re-sale within 72 hours and, immediately before the sale, objects on those parcels will be returned to the previous landowner.

Delete point 6, which is subsumed by previous points.

Add two new points between 7 and 8:

7A. In case the citizen in arrears had their land partially or totally reclaimed for lack of payment, but is able to notify either the Chancellor or the Scientific Council of their intention to continue payments before the re-sale of the parcels, then they are allowed to buy them back for the listed price (which is considered a fee for having payment in arrears).

7B. In case of conflicts regarding improper payments, payments sent but not received or accounted for, and doubts about payment dates related to device failure, or to the failure of the Executive to properly notify citizens in accordance with this Act, the citizen can apply for recourse to the Scientific Council, by notifying the Dean of the Scientific Council via notecard, email, or any similar method deemed adequate. Once the recourse is accepted by the Scientific Council for further review, the eviction mechanism is temporarily suspended until the Scientific Council announces its decision. Abusing the recourse mechanism may be subjected to fees, at the discretion of the Scientific Council.

Comment

CDSL 13-03 imposes very strict rules for dealing with tier payments, and explains very precisely what happens if a citizen defaults payments. Since at that time all payments were due at the same date, it was easier to know, at a glance, who was delinquent or not. Under the current system, payments can happen at any time. This bill proposes, to keep within the spirit of strictness of CDSL 13-03, and taking into account that the current devices allow pre-payment of tier, that failure to pay for all parcels in due time immediately revokes the citizens' right to vote or hold an office in the CDS.

It further clarifies that the Treasurer is responsible to make sure that citizens are properly notified, and that the claiming of parcels from a delinquent landowner is the role of the Chancellor. Furthermore, for consistency with other laws, this bill limits the time that a parcel can be held vacant without being offered for re-sale (to 72 hours).

On the other hand, technical difficulties are frequent in Second Life, and even the best mechanisms fail. To avoid unlawfully punishing any citizen who made a serious attempt to pay tier without being able to do so due to technical (or procedural) failure, the right to appeal to the Scientific Council was explicitly added, as well as a 'last chance' opportunity to buy back the land that was claimed before it goes on public sale.

Changes from version 1.0:

  • Clarify that citizenship is only made 'temporary' if all parcels are in arrears. Keeping at least one parcel current on payments is sufficient for full citizenship.

  • Clarify that only land in arrears will be claimed.

  • Clarify that at least two reasonably reliable methods of notification are required

  • Added the 'last chance' opportunity to buy back the land if it hasn't been sold yet (i.e., within the 72-hour-period for the re-sale). In this case, the fee for having overdue payments is the cost of buying the land back.

  • Because of that, objects are only to be returned at the moment of the re-sale, and not earlier, to give the delinquent citizen a 'last chance' to keep the land as it was.

Changes from version 2.1:

  • Made explicit that notifications for reclaims and information on reduced citizenship status shall be at least by IM and notecard and a third way with guaranteed delivery.

Last edited by Gwyneth Llewelyn on Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Corrected information regarding notifications on point 2

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

cleopatraxigalia
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Post by cleopatraxigalia »

I am wary about adding a third way that is ambiguous ...asking the CDS to track citizens emails seems unfair and too time consuming and possibly biased. I would ask that the third way of delivering notification be by PM on the forums so that it is fair across the board. The most important aspect of the notification requirement is that it is the same for everyone.

I for example do not have email atm and proving one was Sent to me would be difficult. It's also quite easy to misspell an email address. Not so much a PM on forums.

Gwyn your bill seems not to fix the most important part of how we limit chancellors powers. You wrote that the land be taken after 14 days. I think we need a precise day that thw land will be taken that is the same for everyone. If we don't say that we leave chancellor discretion in play with when to take who's land. I do not like this at all as it is an open door for favoritism. Can we say the land will be taken in the 14th day. Period

Also i read too much the leeway in the appeal process.
If you don't log in you won't get IM or notecards amd you cannot pay tier.

I am not happy that anyone can pay anyone else's tier either. I can see parcels being kept off the market to keep new people from coming in for absent citizens. Especially small cheap parcels.

We need to think in terms of land equals votes more and rethink some of this.

Here

Cleo
User avatar
Bagheera
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Post by Bagheera »

If I am reading this right, I would recommend changing the putting for sale "72 hours after reclamation" to something that acknowledges the fixed land sale dates Ceasar established which allows everyone to know when land will be up for sale.

What I might recommend - at present Ceasar instituted a 24 hour advance notice to the public for inclusion in the land sale - change THAT to 72 hours. It means land will be in limbo for a few days longer - but it also means the prior landowner has that much more time in which to intervene and reclaim their lands.

Usually I Dislike a Cloud Sky
Tonight I Realize That a Cloud Sky
Makes Me Appreciate the Light of the Moon
- impromptu poem composed by Gen'i
as depicted in Yoshitoshi's 100 Aspects of the Moon
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Re: Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Cleo,

Adding a 'third' way is just an attempt to stop relying on SL's very unreliable methods of communication. I'd be open to other suggestions, of course, but it seems quite clear that relying too much on IMs and notecards will most certainly mean that many people will never be notified.

One complex mechanism would be to track (with an in-world object) who is online, and, if they're in arrears, IM them instantly. IMs received when online are never capped. This should be actually very easy to do. The problem, of course, is if someone doesn't log in during an extended period.

PMs in the forums are a possibility, but they're also capped. Once you have received a 100, you cannot receive more — unless you log in to delete some. I'm not sure if this can be changed.

Emails aren't perfect, either. Mailboxes get full, and spam filters tend to delete messages. Also, delivery is not guaranteed. But it's better than most alternatives.

Getting a list of emails is not that hard; most citizens have registered for the forums, so we already have a list of those emails. The issue is that citizens registered in the forums haven't allowed them to receive emails for any other purpose unrelated to the forums. Also, many emails might have been used for registration but may have changed.

And perhaps some citizens are fine with getting a text message on their mobile phones...

So the idea is to mostly give the Chancellor a choice of using a better way of delivery, and allowing them a choice among the many possible alternatives, so long as their delivery is 'more' guaranteed than IM/Notecard... who knows what will be available in a decade from now... or even just next year! LL might even include a 'guaranteed' IM mechanism (like they now do for money transactions), and that might be a good replacement for the current system.

I'm not fine in letting people pay for someone else, either, but that's how the Hippo system currently works... previously, one would have to arrange payments in advance by going through the Treasurer. Now anyone can pay for anyone else, as far as I can see.

Finally, I think you're absolutely right about the '14th day'. I'll amend it!

Bagheera, you're right — 72 hours for announcing something that will happen 72 hours after that is a good compromise, and it means that people will have 6 days before their land back. I'll change that as well!

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03 v2.2

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Added Calli's proposed changes to make more notifications:

Clarification of the Land Sales Reclamation Act (NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03) (Version 2.2)

Preamble

CDSL 13-03, which amends NL 9-2, establishes the procedures by which citizens, defaulting their payments, become delinquent, partially lose their citizenship, and finally cease to be citizens.

CDSL 13-03 worked under the assumption that (a) either citizens just have a single parcel or (b) there is a mechanism allowing to pay for all parcels simultaneously at the same date. The current system allows different parcels to be held by the same citizen, and each parcel's tier can be due at different dates. Fortunately, the writing of CDSL 13-03 is almost able to deal with the current system, and this bill just makes the following changes, for the sake of clarification:

Amend point 1 to read:

Citizens of CDS are expected to pay tier rentals to the CDS Treasurer in a timely fashion. Payment is to be done automatically, either via specific in-world devices design to collect citizen's payments, or similar mechanisms employing a web-based application. All money collected from tier is to be sent directly to the Treasurer (or a special tier-receiving account just created for the purpose of collecting tier). The due dates for tier are automatically processed by whatever mechanism is implemented and also automatically announced to the landowners by Instant Message, email, or another similar mechanism. In the case of a device failure, it is the responsibility of the Treasurer to make the required announcements manually.

On point 2, where it says:

... when they have failed to pay tier rental...

amend to read:

... when they have failed to pay tier rental for any of the parcels currently held under their name...

On point 2, remove:

... (which may be by IM or notecard) ...

And add instead to the end of point 2:

Notifications shall be made by at least Instant Message and sending the citizen a notecard, and additionally also via another, more reliable mechanisms of notification, like email (if available), private messages on the forums, or any similar mechanism where delivery is more guaranteed.

On point 3, where it says:

...who has failed timely to pay rental tier...

amend to read:

...who has failed timely to pay rental tier for all of the parcels currently held under their name...

Also on point 3, where it says:

... The citizen shall receive a notice (by IM or notecard) advising her or him ...

amend to read

... The citizen shall receive a notice (using the same mechanisms established on point 2) advising her or him ...

Amend point 5 to read:

  1. On the fourteenth (14th) day after the due date on any of the parcels held by the landowner, if the landowner has continued to fail to pay the full amount then overdue to CDS for those parcels, all parcels in arrears owned by the landowner will be reclaimed by the Chancellor and set for resale.

  2. 72 hours after the 14th day, the Chancellor shall make a public announcement about which parcels will be up for a land sale, using the official channels (group notices and publishing the announcement on the forums and on other public channels).

  3. The reclaimed parcels are to be set for re-sale within 72 hours of the announcement.

  4. Immediately before the sale, objects on those parcels will be returned to the previous landowner.

Delete point 6, which is subsumed by previous points.

Add two new points between 7 and 8:

7A. In case the citizen in arrears had their land partially or totally reclaimed for lack of payment, but is able to notify either the Chancellor or the Scientific Council of their intention to continue payments before the re-sale of the parcels, then they are allowed to buy them back for the listed price (which is considered a fee for having payment in arrears).

7B. In case of conflicts regarding improper payments, payments sent but not received or accounted for, and doubts about payment dates related to device failure, or to the failure of the Executive to properly notify citizens in accordance with this Act, the citizen can apply for recourse to the Scientific Council, by notifying the Dean of the Scientific Council via notecard, email, or any similar method deemed adequate. Once the recourse is accepted by the Scientific Council for further review, the eviction mechanism is temporarily suspended until the Scientific Council announces its decision. Abusing the recourse mechanism may be subjected to fees, at the discretion of the Scientific Council.

Comment

CDSL 13-03 imposes very strict rules for dealing with tier payments, and explains very precisely what happens if a citizen defaults payments. Since at the time CSDL 13-03 was approved, all payments for all parcels for all citizens were due at the same date, it was easier to know, at a glance, who was delinquent or not. Under the current system, payments can happen at any time. This bill proposes to keep the spirit of strictness of CDSL 13-03, adapting it to the circumstances of the current system.

It further clarifies that the Treasurer is responsible to make sure that citizens are properly notified, but that the reclaiming of parcels from a delinquent landowner (and the proper notification for the reclaiming) is the duty of the Chancellor. Furthermore, for consistency with other laws, this bill limits the time that a parcel can be held vacant without being offered for re-sale (to 72 hours for the announcement after the reclaim, and another 72 hours for the land sale to happen).

On the other hand, technical difficulties are frequent in Second Life, and even the best mechanisms fail. To avoid unlawfully punishing any citizen who made a serious attempt to pay tier without being able to do so due to technical (or procedural) failure, the right to appeal to the Scientific Council was explicitly added, as well as a 'last chance' opportunity to buy back the land that was claimed before it goes on public sale.

Changes from version 1.0:

  • Clarify that citizenship is only made 'temporary' if all parcels are in arrears. Keeping at least one parcel current on payments is sufficient for full citizenship.

  • Clarify that only land in arrears will be claimed.

  • Clarify that at least two reasonably reliable methods of notification are required

  • Added the 'last chance' opportunity to buy back the land if it hasn't been sold yet (i.e., within the 72-hour-period for the re-sale). In this case, the fee for having overdue payments is the cost of buying the land back.

  • Because of that, objects are only to be returned at the moment of the re-sale, and not earlier, to give the delinquent citizen a 'last chance' to keep the land as it was.

Changes from version 2.0:

  • Made explicit that notifications for reclaims and information on reduced citizenship status shall be at least by IM and notecard and a third way with guaranteed delivery.

Changes from version 2.1:

  • Reworded the comment section to be consistent with previous changes.

  • Added Cleo's suggestion that the Chancellor can only claim the parcels on the 14th day and not before that.

  • Added Bagheera's suggestion that the Chancellor only makes an announcement of the land sale 72 hours after claiming the parcel, and that the land sale only happens 72 hours after the announcement, thus giving anyone in arrears the opportunity to buy their land back in those 6 days. Clarified that the announcement has to be public.

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Re: Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Post by Bromo Ivory »

I'd want something put in the law to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the renter to pay their tier, and if the person doesn't receive notices that were sent (IM's being capped, wron or bad emails, or other notification methods not getting through) it does not remove the responsibility to remain current in the payment. The petition to the SC can be made for extraordinary circumstances, and the SC can grant "forgiveness" at their discretion provided the tier payment is immediately brought up to date.

I had thought previously the Chancellor should have flexibility, but then realized that it would probably be better to remove that flexibility to the Chancellor, and bring it to the SC to review "extraordinary circumstances" since citizenship and voting rights are determined by land ownership and tier being current. I'd rather remove those sorts of decisions from even the possibility of partisanship.

I am not sure I am comfortable with a lapsed payment on one property causing the loss of all of them. Though it sure would bring some seriousness to rent payments.

(Yes, hard core, but if you look at RL utility companies, and landlords, and the fact that LL gives no flexibility in "being late" with payments to them, someone who doesn't intend to leave being delinquent in payments, weakens and places risk on CDS for everyone else...)

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Post by Callipygian »

Bromo Ivory wrote:

I'd want something put in the law to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the renter to pay their tier, and if the person doesn't receive notices that were sent (IM's being capped, wron or bad emails, or other notification methods not getting through) it does not remove the responsibility to remain current in the payment. The petition to the SC can be made for extraordinary circumstances, and the SC can grant "forgiveness" at their discretion provided the tier payment is immediately brought up to date.

I had thought previously the Chancellor should have flexibility, but then realized that it would probably be better to remove that flexibility to the Chancellor, and bring it to the SC to review "extraordinary circumstances" since citizenship and voting rights are determined by land ownership and tier being current. I'd rather remove those sorts of decisions from even the possibility of partisanship.

I am not sure I am comfortable with a lapsed payment on one property causing the loss of all of them. Though it sure would bring some seriousness to rent payments.

(Yes, hard core, but if you look at RL utility companies, and landlords, and the fact that LL gives no flexibility in "being late" with payments to them, someone who doesn't intend to leave being delinquent in payments, weakens and places risk on CDS for everyone else...)

Please do not even consider writing law based on the intent of having the SC 'grant forgiveness at their discretion'!

The SC's role is to interpret law, including at times whether the law has been applied fairly and equitably or has been misinterpreted in its application. It is NOT the SC's duty to decide on variances or special circumstances; that is the area in which the Chancellor has freedom to act or not. If there is a desire to have variances or extraordinary circumstances taken into account by the SC, then the RA must legislate when such special circumstances will apply.

Callipygian

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing.

Walter H. Judd
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Re: Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Bromo Ivory wrote:

I'd want something put in the law to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the renter to pay their tier, and if the person doesn't receive notices that were sent (IM's being capped, wron or bad emails, or other notification methods not getting through) it does not remove the responsibility to remain current in the payment. The petition to the SC can be made for extraordinary circumstances, and the SC can grant "forgiveness" at their discretion provided the tier payment is immediately brought up to date.

13-03 begins with: Citizens of CDS are expected to pay tier rentals to the CDS Treasurer in a timely fashion.
and it ends with The CDS Executive Branch is encouraged to take reasonable additional steps to notify citizens of past due amounts and all other matters described in this Act, but timely rent payment primarily is the citizen’s responsibility to monitor.

This part of the text is not proposed to be amended :) but to remain exactly like that. I think it's already strong enough language, don't you agree?

Bromo Ivory wrote:

I had thought previously the Chancellor should have flexibility, but then realized that it would probably be better to remove that flexibility to the Chancellor, and bring it to the SC to review "extraordinary circumstances" since citizenship and voting rights are determined by land ownership and tier being current. I'd rather remove those sorts of decisions from even the possibility of partisanship.

There is nothing in this law that allows the Chancellor 'flexibility'. Instead, there is explicitly granted the right to complain to the SC if the Executive branch didn't notify the citizen properly. So the only appeal is processual. Cleo had insisted that it was made clear that on the 14th day of being in arrears, the Chancellor has to claim the land back, no matter what. The only exceptions are that the citizen was never informed, or, worse, have paid everything in time but their payment was not accounted for, or tried to pay on the correct date but the system failed, etc.

The Chancellor, under this law is not allowed to say, 'oh, this person is my friend or a long-standing citizen of the CDS, let's be generous'. Neither can the SC do that. In fact, the SC cannot do anything at all unless the citizen complains! And the SC is furthermore given explicitly the right to refuse to listen, and even apply fees if a citizen is abusing the recourse mechanism... heh. So I think the law covers all your objections, doesn't it? :)

Bromo Ivory wrote:

I am not sure I am comfortable with a lapsed payment on one property causing the loss of all of them. Though it sure would bring some seriousness to rent payments.

This was my initial assumption, because that's how it worked before Hippo. To keep citizenship and stop paying for all parcels, a citizen would have to explicitly sell/abandon all land they don't wish to hold, and just keep their payments for the remaining parcels.

However, there was a strong objection against that rigorous view (the same you're doing now), so I've changed the amendment to be less strict. They are to remain citizens if at least one of the parcels is not in arrears, and only the land in arrears is claimed. Actually, it is a bit more honest that way. I'm hoping that the next land management system sets a fixed day for all payments simultaneously, though, and then we can amend this law again to reflect the new system. But that can take months or years, and, until then, this law is a bit more permissive.

Bromo Ivory wrote:

(Yes, hard core, but if you look at RL utility companies, and landlords, and the fact that LL gives no flexibility in "being late" with payments to them, someone who doesn't intend to leave being delinquent in payments, weakens and places risk on CDS for everyone else...)

I have to concur. I would agree being more tolerant if and only if Linden Lab were more tolerant and flexible as well. Because they obviously aren't — there will be no excuses — we cannot impose 'weaker' rules than what LL imposes to us. It's quite unfair to expect 'others' to pay (to be able to keep our payments to LL) just because we're lazy or not paying attention (not to mention malicious abuse!). So, well, we're all in the same boat here. If the CDS were in the mainland and if we had to pay directly to LL, we would have to submit to much harsher rules (and there would be no way to appeal LL's decisions!). So, while I know that many disagree, I still think we have to be 'as harsh as LL'.

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

As someone who has actually had to enforce these laws, albeit briefly, I'd like to warn against removing any flexibility from the Chancellor and making this an automatic "14 days over and you're out" law.

If you have three or more people who are over due on tier to different degrees tracking when you should send them messages and when you should boot them is a nightmare to track. And most of us have jobs or other responsibilities. Let's not set up the Chancellor (and Exec team) to fail by making their job impossible. If someone fails to boot on the 15th day I don't think that should be grounds for impeachment.

And Gwyn, if you respond with any breezy declarations of how easy it will be, please note that if I'm ever elected again I'm making you an Estate Manager and this will be your sole responsibility for a month!

Honi soit qui mal y pense
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Post by Sudane Erato »

Patroklus Murakami wrote:

And Gwyn, if you respond with any breezy declarations of how easy it will be, please note that if I'm ever elected again I'm making you an Estate Manager and this will be your sole responsibility for a month!

LOL :) :) Good idea! :)

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

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Re: Bill proposal: Clarification of NL 9-2 and CDSL 13-03

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

You could be sure that if I had time to be an active Estate Manager for a month, I'd immediately automate the process... :)

Seriously, I'm very wary of giving the Chancellor a chance to decide who is going to be evicted and who is not. We should have learned our lesson by now — that's the way of favouritism and nepotism, just keeping the people you like and allowing them to be around for months or years without paying, and evicting those that we dislike. It just came to my attention that a person in the CDS with an official role in Government hadn't legally been a citizen for 17 months, and due to some discussion popping up in the forums, they quickly got some land before anybody noticed. It's that kind of thing that we really have to prevent.

The only "flexibility" I'm willing to accept is that the notification of eviction is separated from the actual act. What that means is that on the 14th day the citizen shall be notified that they have been legally evicted, even if in practice nobody from the Executive actually managed to log in on the precise day to reclaim the land. This would allow compliance with the law — announcing land sales, etc. in due time — while actually allowing Chancellors and Estate Managers not to overly stress because they are all unable to log in on the exact day. I'm actually quite sure that the vast majority of people who doesn't intend to pay are not going to be around anyway, so if it takes a few more days for their land to be physically reclaimed, that makes no difference.

And of course I'm quite willing to accept that the law only goes in effect after Sudane & Timo finish their work. If there is no automated mechanism right now that can send notifications on the 14th day, then the law is pointless (and so is our current land management system). So I'm quite willing to add that this clause only enters into effect when there is a mechanism that can notify the Chancellor automatically on the 14th day.

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”