Proposed amendment to NL 5-9

Sleazy_Writer · Post by **Sleazy_Writer** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:02 pm

I'm looking forward to your plan, Sudane. And I'm glad Claude looks positively toward Patroklus' and my proposals.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":3q6cskla]that if each member of a group must pay individually and some don't , do we then reclaim part of a parcel?[/quote:3q6cskla]I don't know if we should have something on paper about this, but: The only practical way of doing this is by NOT arbitrarily splitting parcels or the buildings on it, but requiring the other members to pay the missing L$'s. They own the land as a group and should fulfill their duties as a group. I propose to give the 'others', say, 1 extra month to pay the missing L$'s. I don't think the above scenario is different from current groups with payment problems. I'm sure Sudane has a way of dealing with this.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:19 pm

TOP, you asked for feedback on your suggestions.

Strangely enough, I favour Option 1
I also agree with having a 'declaration' that prospective citizens agree to before joining the CDS. That way people know what they're signing up to and the possibilities for trouble further down the road are diminished.

I think we should consider the implications of Option 2 carefully. Limiting the number of citizens who can claim membership via a group makes sense but the limit of 4 seems somewhat arbitrary. Why not 5? Or 20? And what about larger groups who might want/need more substantial land holdings? For example, a religious or cultural group of 20 members might want to hold citizenship through a 2560 m2 (or larger) plot on which they have built a temple or language centre. Would we want to discourage that?

Claude's issue is a more tricky one. What do we do if one member of a group defaults? And how can we deal with this scenario in a just way and without too much of an admin headache? There will always be honest mistakes and time when RL issues mean a payment isn't made on time but, when someone consistently defaults and makes no effort to rectify the situation, they cease to be citizens. I agree with TOP that the group should be responsible for making sure that any deficit is made up. The group should be responsible for deciding how much each member pays and take responsibility for making sure that everyone pays their way. This has to be the 'duty' that goes along with the 'right' to owning land as part of a group.

Desmond Shang · Post by **Desmond Shang** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:56 pm

[quote="Sudane Erato":1ka6n1fg]To suggest that there exists a class of "landed gentry" in the C.D.S. sims is to simply not comprehend reality. The CDS is a community of ideas and an experiment in social structure. The individual motivation to advance one's own interests as vested in one's own land, which underlies the very concept of the landed gentry, is entirely lacking in the CDS.[/quote:1ka6n1fg]

'Advancing one's own interests as vested in land' - I don't mean this in a plantation sort of "I have a lot of land and from its income, I'm influential" way. Clearly CDS land isn't being used as income property very extensively.

As I see it: Landed (having land) and gentry (social class conferred citizenship and voting rights because of that land).

I suppose if you have land, everyone else without land is simply seen as a visitor? True, I'm either not comprehending reality, or perhaps the reality I see (nonlanded citizens) is simply too risky for the CDS.

[quote="Sudane Erato":1ka6n1fg]I frankly wish it were not so, since an issue we have struggled with since inception has been the promotion of enterprise in the sims. Some amount of motivation to advance one's own interest through economic enterprise would be a healthy component to our community. So far, efforts in this direction have not succeeded.[/quote:1ka6n1fg]

Mmmm, tough nut, that. Would the adequately-wealthy landed that are content just paying their dues ever vote to make more work for themselves?

Anyway, I do not wish to detract from Top's topic.

Honestly, if I had time to truly be participatory, I'd pick up Ranma's parcel and more, and we'd have some wonderfully lively discussions.

But I've got my own responsibilities, I am merely a forum guest here and have no intention of 'stirring the pot' - perhaps stirring some ideas in a friendly way but no more than that.

I too am looking for the best ways to meet the needs of a large group, and am very willing to share whatever insights I come across. I don't expect anyone to see any value in them, for we all know the value of free advice.

I'm curious how (or if ever) this bit of legislation plays out.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:09 pm

If you allow large groups [i:vv4wrfuq]and [/i:vv4wrfuq]place the onus on other group members to pay up if an individual is in arrears, you undo most of the concrete "anti sugar mommy/ daddy ( if we want to be gender neutral) provisions" in the bill. For example:

A rich avatar with aspirations to political power decides to make a move on CDS. He/She founds a large group. Each of the avatars in the group signs a notecard agreeing to uphold the constitution, and is supposed to pay their individual bit of fee each month. However they don't. The responsibility for paying the back fees falls to 'the rest of the group'. Our hypothetical sugar mommy/daddy steps up and bails out the other group members month after month after month. They appear only to vote, letting him/her take care of the $L.

How does this do anything beyond the notecard to actually prevent a takeover?

Sudane Erato · Post by **Sudane Erato** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:59 pm

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2y9t0fns]If you allow large groups [i:2y9t0fns]and [/i:2y9t0fns]place the onus on other group members to pay up if an individual is in arrears, you undo most of the concrete "anti sugar mommy/ daddy ( if we want to be gender neutral) provisions" in the bill. For example:

A rich avatar with aspirations to political power decides to make a move on CDS. He/She founds a large group. Each of the avatars in the group signs a notecard agreeing to uphold the constitution, and is supposed to pay their individual bit of fee each month. However they don't. The responsibility for paying the back fees falls to 'the rest of the group'. Our hypothetical sugar mommy/daddy steps up and bails out the other group members month after month after month. They appear only to vote, letting him/her take care of the $L.

How does this do anything beyond the notecard to actually prevent a takeover?[/quote:2y9t0fns]

I agree with this. My proposal will be that each person must pay their share. If someone is in arrears, and the ownership of the land and the citizenship of all the members is threatened, it should be upon the other members to bring the unresponsibile member into line, or eject them from the group, and therefore citizenship.

Sudane.....

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:19 am

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":17e42t3g]If you allow large groups [i:17e42t3g]and [/i:17e42t3g]place the onus on other group members to pay up if an individual is in arrears, you undo most of the concrete "anti sugar mommy/ daddy ( if we want to be gender neutral) provisions" in the bill. For example:

A rich avatar with aspirations to political power decides to make a move on CDS. He/She founds a large group. Each of the avatars in the group signs a notecard agreeing to uphold the constitution, and is supposed to pay their individual bit of fee each month. However they don't. The responsibility for paying the back fees falls to 'the rest of the group'. Our hypothetical sugar mommy/daddy steps up and bails out the other group members month after month after month. They appear only to vote, letting him/her take care of the $L.

How does this do anything beyond the notecard to actually prevent a takeover?[/quote:17e42t3g][quote="Patroklus Murakami":17e42t3g]when someone consistently defaults and makes no effort to rectify the situation, they cease to be citizens.[/quote:17e42t3g]The *individual* has to pay their way in order to remain a citizen. If 'daddy' steps in each month to pay the fee... they lose the members of their group.

Aliasi Stonebender · Post by **Aliasi Stonebender** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:16 pm

[quote="Desmond Shang":3nuffs6a]
'Advancing one's own interests as vested in land' - I don't mean this in a plantation sort of "I have a lot of land and from its income, I'm influential" way. Clearly CDS land isn't being used as income property very extensively.

As I see it: Landed (having land) and gentry (social class conferred citizenship and voting rights because of that land).

I suppose if you have land, everyone else without land is simply seen as a visitor? True, I'm either not comprehending reality, or perhaps the reality I see (nonlanded citizens) is simply too risky for the CDS.
[/quote:3nuffs6a]

I believe this arises from trying too hard to apply real-life situations to Second Life. In reality, landed gentry is anathema to the democratic ideal since it denies so many in a nation any political voice.

The CDS is a collection of simulators that run on computers in California (and now, Texas). No one is forced to live within our borders for the crime of 'my parents had sex here'. These servers require a steady income to maintain, and we are not a commune. By charging land fees, a person who wishes to be a citizen of the project must give it some tangible support.

Nothing in this rules out non-landed citizens per se, but it's like the housing co-op analogy I favor - there's rarely such a thing as a co-op renter who does not have a dwelling in the co-op, since the entire POINT of the co-op is to collectively own housing!

Therefore, this cannot be legitimately be compared with the concept of 'landed gentry' as you have it. Even the group law we have still has each member with 'theoretical' title to land, even if it's not a particular 128 m^2 plot!

I won't pretend that the phenomeon of having people who have a home point set to somewhere in a CDS and 'live' here, yet do not own land, does not exist. But I do not see the great crime in these people not being citizens - they are not restrained, and if they contribute to the project in some less material fashion it's well within the right of the goverment to compensate them, as was done for Antonius Camus.

Desmond Shang · Post by **Desmond Shang** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:04 pm

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":31ijjky3]Nothing in this rules out non-landed citizens per se, but it's like the housing co-op analogy I favor - there's rarely such a thing as a co-op renter who does not have a dwelling in the co-op, since the entire POINT of the co-op is to collectively own housing!

Therefore, this cannot be legitimately be compared with the concept of 'landed gentry' as you have it. Even the group law we have still has each member with 'theoretical' title to land, even if it's not a particular 128 m^2 plot![/quote:31ijjky3]

This is very interesting, on a much higher level.

The 'point' of the CDS does not seem to be land. It's far more than that. Per Sudane: "The CDS is a community of ideas and an experiment in social structure."

Yet land, a necessary evil, defines citizenship. Perhaps some issues with regard to land and citizenship are to be expected.

Aliasi Stonebender · Post by **Aliasi Stonebender** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:40 am

[quote="Desmond Shang":34sm7nx4]
This is very interesting, on a much higher level.

The 'point' of the CDS does not seem to be land. It's far more than that. Per Sudane: "The CDS is a community of ideas and an experiment in social structure."

Yet land, a necessary evil, defines citizenship. Perhaps some issues with regard to land and citizenship are to be expected.[/quote:34sm7nx4]

If the ability to build permanent structures on a simulator was not a central point, there would be no need for the simulators as they stand.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:48 am

When we speak of group owned land there are two different things going on.

1. Multiple existing citizens co-own a lot from which none derive their citizenship (ex. a business partnership or prim lot separate from each of its owners' homes) This is , I think , not controversial,

2. Group ownership from which citizenship is derived.

If we require individual members to pay their own land fees and put the whole group on the hook if a member is in arrears, why would anyone want to be a citizen via group land. If they're going to have to pay individually anyway they might as well have their own lot and not be at risk of losing citizenship if another member of their group fails to pay.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:24 am

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":10vfis93]When we speak of group owned land there are two different things going on.

1. Multiple existing citizens co-own a lot from which none derive their citizenship (ex. a business partnership or prim lot separate from each of its owners' homes) This is , I think , not controversial,[/quote:10vfis93]Agreed.

[quote:10vfis93]2. Group ownership from which citizenship is derived.

If we require individual members to pay their own land fees and put the whole group on the hook if a member is in arrears, why would anyone want to be a citizen via group land. If they're going to have to pay individually anyway they might as well have their own lot and not be at risk of losing citizenship if another member of their group fails to pay.[/quote:10vfis93]A citizen might want to be a citizen via group land in this way under the following circumstances:

i) They are prior CDS citizens who choose to form a partnership and want to combine their separate land holdings into one. The commitment to paying 'their' share of the land use fees under this arrangement should be no less than if they held land separately and, if they choose to move in together, may make it easier to make the payments. Two can live as cheaply as one, as they say!
ii) They are members of a CDS group (possibly cultural, religious, language, political) and wish to own land as part of that group so they can build a park/ mosque/ temple/ institute with land holdings that each of them could not afford to maintain individually.

They would not be at risk of losing their citizenship if another member of the group failed to pay. Each individual is responsible for paying their share; if they default consistently it is the responsibility of the group to make up the shortfall but it is only the individual who has defaulted who stands to lose citizenship. The purpose of having such a rule is so that we attract committed citizens who are prepared to make the effort to support the monthly cost of maintaining our sims and to encourage those who want to use group ownership of land to make sure they only include the committed in their group.

Sleazy_Writer · Post by **Sleazy_Writer** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:41 pm

Claudes new/changed proposal that was proposed at the RA's April 15th meeting isn't posted here yet, is it?

Claude, would you please paste it here?

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:43 pm

----
Replace the second sentence of section 1 ("All members must be citizens before joining the group. ") with the following.

New groups through which citizenship is conferred must be founded by existing citizens. New citizens may join existing citizenship groups. Individual group members are responsible for their own portion of the group's land fees. A maximum of five avatars may draw citizenship from any single group.

----
Now for the long winded explanation:

I believe the original intent of the existing citizen provision was an attempt to deal with the vulnerability of our system to coordinated mass immigration. It was recognized that, without that provision, a person with deep pockets and a couple of dozen loyal friends (or alts) could turn the CDS on its ear. The implementation of the 28 day residency requirement for voting was an attempt to address similar concerns.

Way way back when, you had to have two references from current citizens before you could become one (sort of like Rotary). Of course we don't do that any more.

As we continue to grow and if we get citizens to vote in sufficient numbers, such a calculated takeover becomes more difficult, but until we get to a voting populace of a couple of hundred, what safeguards need to remain in place. I proposed the above change (allowing existing groups to bring in new people or existing citizens to make new groups) as a first attempt at a middle way between the restrictiveness of the existing law and a free for all that might invite electoral manipulation.

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:56 pm

Would it be possible to add that these limits are only in place until X number of people own land, or X number of sims are on line, or something like this. Laws that self-expire are always welcome in my mind.

Sleazy_Writer · Post by **Sleazy_Writer** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:19 pm

[quote="Dnate Mars":2mxubism]Would it be possible to add that these limits are only in place until X number of people own land, or X number of sims are on line, or something like this. Laws that self-expire are always welcome in my mind.[/quote:2mxubism]
I don't think so, letting this amended clause expire will make the *intended* safeguard disappear. Or if the whole act expires, group land ownership (=NL 5-9) wouldn't be possible anymore: This is not desired.

Maybe in the far future we could try a comprehensive citizenship re-write, but for now this is just a proposed amendment, so don't worry we're not adding yet another law to the list.