Reasons for The Proposed Legislation

[Jon Seattle]

A member of our community posted a truly vicious and offensive attack on me. When I posted a reply, and only then. that person deleted the attack and asked me to delete my reply. I did so even though, I suspect, many people read the earlier post. I have several points to make about this issue:

1. This discussion is about ideas and not persons. That is why I am not using names. Please address your posts to the idea of the guild holding all IP rights to public builds and not the CDS.

I was very clear in my post that I was proposing a hypothetical to argue that the future of the CDS needs to protect its rights over its public builds. No organization, as far as I can tell, has yet tried to take over the guild, but it could easily happen.

There are people, however, arguing that the guild, not the CDS should hold all IP rights to buildings in public spaces.

2. Contrary to what some others are saying, I was absolutely within my rights to bring this to open debate as we are a republic, not a dictatorship. This is how it is done in a democratic system.

3. The guild is an organization chartered by the RA and is required to provide service to the CDS republic. The CDS legislature is the voice of the citizens who elect representatives. The guild members, on the other hand, are self-appointed. The idea that the guild would hold all the IP rights to property, say the bridges in NFS and Colonia Nova, means that a future guild could decide to remove them at any time.

The idea that the CDS's main assets, its very streets and city walls, (I am told worth tens of thousands of US dollars) should not rest in the hands of our elected representatives is a profoundly anti-republican and anti-democratic sentiment. It does not matter how you dress it up.

4. One proposal that was made was that we lock out all builders and forbid them to do any work on our projects if they would not sign over to the guild, (not the to the CDS), the IP rights to all of their past work.

This means that all of the buildings, roads, bridges and towers of both the existing Neufrestadt and Colonia Nova would be delivered to a non-elected non-governmental organization.

I think this is a really bad idea, and I sincerely hope the community will express their opinion on this issue. This is about policy formation however, not electoral politics. Please go vote first and then think about this.

[Dnate Mars]

I guess I can see why the Guild was part of the government in the past. Would it be possible that the Guild hold the rights for the CDS in some way, shape, or form? Or maybe the CDS will own the rights, but is willing to allow the guild free access to all their rights?

[michelmanen]

I really don't see what the fuss is all about. The Guild has been chartered by the RA. It is an independent, public-purpose organisation with a specific function and mission. It is independent of any political faction and therefore, of any party in power at any given time. However, nothing stops the RA to withdraw its Charter and modify its mandate.

The Guild is the perfect organisation to hold the CDS' IP rights; this is a technical issue - in the same way that independent, Real World central banks control countries' money supply, printing presses and interest rates. The purpose of this is to entrust the IP rights to a truly respected, independent organisation and keep the issue of IP rights separate from the politics and personalities of the moment.

All you are doing with your hypotheticals is to raise specters of doom and gloom where there aren't any. I do not question your right as an individual to say whatever you want; but as a Guild Secretary, you must meet what Beethan once labeled "a higher standard" of both discourse and ethics. The timing of this in the middle of the voting week, is even more unfortunate.

All this is a storm in a tea-pot and a total non-issue, whose only effect has been to hurt and insult people who have given selflessly their time, effort, skills and resources to the Guild -you being among them. Lets' all say we're sorry to each other and move on.

[Beathan]

Michel --

You don't see a problem, in a group of sims owned and run as a democratic government, in having some private organization own and control the objects in the sims? Frankly, guild control of the IP rights is a terrible idea -- made minimally acceptable only with great care.

First, the RA is the centerpiece of our democratic project. It represents the clearest and most recent expression of the will of our citizens through election. It is the institution most directly subject to citizen control. It is, by far, the safest institution in terms of power and control of the sims or objects in the sims for the reason that it is regular subject to the direction and control of the citizens.

The Guild, as good as it is, does not have these benefits. I think, given that the Guild is a private, volunteer organization -- it is plain silly to trust it more than the RA, or believe that it has more general trust than the RA.

Further, the fact that the Guild is "Chartered by the RA" does not solve this problem. If the Guild is the location of IP ownership, and the Guild ceases to be chartered by the RA, what happens to IP rights? We need to spell this out -- and we need to make sure that they devolve to the RA (or some other CDS governmental institution) in such event. Ordinarily, in the event of corporate involuntary dissolution, such property would not go to the state -- it would go to the individual owners of the corporation. Therefore, without carefully drafting a plan to transfer IP rights to the RA (or somesuch) in the event of guild dissolution, we would have a fight on our hands about IP ownership -- and I think that the better technical legal argument might favor the IP rights going to the individuals who were active in the Guild at the time the CDS parted ways from it. This would be a disaster.

I think Jon is right -- all these problems can be avoided, and elegantly avoided, if IP rights are held by the RA (or by the Treasurer/Estate Owner as Treasurer/Estate Owner). However, if we are, for reasons which strike me as terribly misguided, committed to the idea that the Guild should own IP rights -- then we must take great care to draft, with clear specificity, that the CDS keeps the IP rights if the Guild and the CDS part ways.

Finally, I don't see anything in Jon' spost that violates the "higher ethical standard" we require of our leaders. In fact, the opposite is the case. Jon is putting the longterm interests and protection of our community above his personal power. If Jon were motivated inappropriately, he would stand silently by as IP rights to the very rocks and stones of our streets and houses are transferred to an organization over which he exercises substantial personal control. Instead, he spoke up about a legitimate and critical point of concern to the community as a whole and, in magnanimity beyond the call of duty, agreed to step down from the very organization that would benefit (at the expense of our community) if his voice was not heard. This is exactly the kind of higher ethical standard to which I hope all active citizens aspire.

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Jon Seattle":g5h1lbsy]
4. One proposal that was made was that we lock out all builders and forbid them to do any work on our projects if they would not sign over to the guild, (not the to the CDS), the [i:g5h1lbsy]IP rights to all of their past work[/i:g5h1lbsy].
[/quote:g5h1lbsy]

Meaning non CDS works as well - or just the works for the CDS?

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Beathan":3q5gbo8z]Michel --

You don't see a problem, in a group of sims owned and run as a democratic government, in having some private organization own and control the objects in the sims? Frankly, guild control of the IP rights is a terrible idea -- made minimally acceptable only with great care.

First, the RA is the centerpiece of our democratic project. It represents the clearest and most recent expression of the will of our citizens through election. It is the institution most directly subject to citizen control. It is, by far, the safest institution in terms of power and control of the sims or objects in the sims for the reason that it is regular subject to the direction and control of the citizens.

The Guild, as good as it is, does not have these benefits. I think, given that the Guild is a private, volunteer organization -- it is plain silly to trust it more than the RA, or believe that it has more general trust than the RA.

Further, the fact that the Guild is "Chartered by the RA" does not solve this problem. If the Guild is the location of IP ownership, and the Guild ceases to be chartered by the RA, what happens to IP rights? We need to spell this out -- and we need to make sure that they devolve to the RA (or some other CDS governmental institution) in such event. Ordinarily, in the event of corporate involuntary dissolution, such property would not go to the state -- it would go to the individual owners of the corporation. Therefore, without carefully drafting a plan to transfer IP rights to the RA (or somesuch) in the event of guild dissolution, we would have a fight on our hands about IP ownership -- and I think that the better technical legal argument might favor the IP rights going to the individuals who were active in the Guild at the time the CDS parted ways from it. This would be a disaster.

I think Jon is right -- all these problems can be avoided, and elegantly avoided, if IP rights are held by the RA (or by the Treasurer/Estate Owner as Treasurer/Estate Owner). However, if we are, for reasons which strike me as terribly misguided, committed to the idea that the Guild should own IP rights -- then we must take great care to draft, with clear specificity, that the CDS keeps the IP rights if the Guild and the CDS part ways.

Finally, I don't see anything in Jon' spost that violates the "higher ethical standard" we require of our leaders. In fact, the opposite is the case. Jon is putting the longterm interests and protection of our community above his personal power. If Jon were motivated inappropriately, he would stand silently by as IP rights to the very rocks and stones of our streets and houses are transferred to an organization over which he exercises substantial personal control. Instead, he spoke up about a legitimate and critical point of concern to the community as a whole and, in magnanimity beyond the call of duty, agreed to step down from the very organization that would benefit (at the expense of our community) if his voice was not heard. This is exactly the kind of higher ethical standard to which I hope all active citizens aspire.

Beathan[/quote:3q5gbo8z]

Beathan - wasn't this the form you said was OK? Am I missing something?

/me is terribly confused at the moment - so, please, explain in [i:3q5gbo8z]specifics[/i:3q5gbo8z], not philosophy, what is proposed, why it was proposed, and why it is a bad idea.

In a philosophical arguement, I can already see the Libertarian thought that a private group is a better steward that a government (Which surprises me that you don't take this view, Beathan), but I can also see that having oversight can have benefits. I also see in some circumstances, the direct government ownership can be preferable.

And the IP rights - is that the same as owning the prims and a back up in question - or is it something else? This is where I get confused in the real vs. virtual - and the nature of "existence" in SL.

And in the Guild - doesn't it exist and serve at the pleasure of the RA? If so, what would be the issue if the Guild or the RA owns it? (I am genuinely trying to understand this complex argument as a lot does not make sense to me!) And if not, should they?

And the Guild arguably is to serve the CDS - would they ever do work for other SIM's? Should they? And if so, how would the IP be handled then?

[Beathan]

Bromo --

This was the form I said was OK from a legal perspective. That is, I said that I thought it would accomplish what it set out to do -- transfer IP rights to the Guild. Now that I hear that the agreement was professionally drafted by an extremely competent attorney, I am not surprised.

In that post, I did not express an opinion, as a citizen, on whether I thought, as a citizen, that this transfer was a good idea.

However, in my post, I also suggested some changes to the text of the agreement to meet Jon's concerns, raised in another post. When I wrote my post on the agreement I was not aware of the subtext or dispute between Jon, who trusts our democratic project, and others, who do not trust the RA for some reason and would rather privatize the very rocks and stones of our houses.

The Simplicity Party believes in encouraging private action and enterprise -- but we draw the line at sim ownership and IP rights. Our sims should be under strict democratic control and protection -- but our actions in those sims should not be. That is -- our sims should be democratically owned and built, but our actions in our sims should be our own.

In this, we differ markedly from CARE -- which it seems holds the opposite position. All property in our sims, including the very rocks and stones of our houses, roads, and bridges, should be owned by some private institution insulated (at least to some extent) from democratic control -- but our activities, as individuals, should be controlled (or "facilitated") by interventionistic government action or by interventionistic action by a party.

I think Jon has rooted out yet another stark and important issue facing the citizens this election.

Beathan

[Beathan]

Bromo --

The specifics. Simply, it is one thing for the government to own ultimate rights to property (this is routine all societies and is the basis of eminent domain). It is quite another for the government to engage with, control, or facilitate the daily lives of the citizens. Ultimate ownership of our sim and builds should be with the CDS -- and the CDS is most cleanly represented by the CDS government.

Even more specific (although it predates my time and yours -- old timer help requested), the CDS has a history of bitter conflict that makes the current quibbling seem like pillowtalk. The most horrible event in this history was the "Ulrika crisis" -- and it was the result of a private person having IP rights (or claiming IP rights) to builds. Ulrika was a leader of the early CDS. She had a falling out. She left. She took her builds with her. The result was devastation -- roads torn up, houses demolished, large wastelands appearing where a beautiful city had been. This is what we need to avoid -- above all else -- and giving a private person or institution IP rights to our build is a recipe for a repeat of this disaster.

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

Beathan -

Please do not speak for CARE - that is not our platform - and I do not appreciate your "straw man" argument regarding CARE. Our platform is rather detailed on what we want to do - I invite you to read it - and is clear that we intend to involve the citizens in the entire process (like Mizou's well received citizenship commission discussion) of needed change, and in a more open and more democratic method than what we currenlty do today. Hardly what you describe, and try to characterize us as.

I am frankly disappointed at your being so quick to attack - this must mean you got angry - and I would suggest to rein in your temper and if you must continue - to continue on one of the other boards.

If we want to continue to discuss this Guild topic - can you explain specifically what the issues are? As I said before - I feel no light has been shed upon this subject - though the attack was an interesting attempt at an explanation.

Bromo

[quote="Beathan":1t4mysf0]Bromo --

This was the form I said was OK from a legal perspective. That is, I said that I thought it would accomplish what it set out to do -- transfer IP rights to the Guild. Now that I hear that the agreement was professionally drafted by an extremely competent attorney, I am not surprised.

In that post, I did not express an opinion, as a citizen, on whether I thought, as a citizen, that this transfer was a good idea.

However, in my post, I also suggested some changes to the text of the agreement to meet Jon's concerns, raised in another post. When I wrote my post on the agreement I was not aware of the subtext or dispute between Jon, who trusts our democratic project, and others, who do not trust the RA for some reason and would rather privatize the very rocks and stones of our houses.

The Simplicity Party believes in encouraging private action and enterprise -- but we draw the line at sim ownership and IP rights. Our sims should be under strict democratic control and protection -- but our actions in those sims should not be. That is -- our sims should be democratically owned and built, but our actions in our sims should be our own.

In this, we differ markedly from CARE -- which it seems holds the opposite position. All property in our sims, including the very rocks and stones of our houses, roads, and bridges, should be owned by some private institution insulated (at least to some extent) from democratic control -- but our activities, as individuals, should be controlled (or "facilitated") by interventionistic government action or by interventionistic action by a party.

I think Jon has rooted out yet another stark and important issue facing the citizens this election.

Beathan[/quote:1t4mysf0]

[Jon Seattle]

[quote="Bromo Ivory":2ag1rtm5][quote="Jon Seattle":2ag1rtm5]
4. One proposal that was made was that we lock out all builders and forbid them to do any work on our projects if they would not sign over to the guild, (not the to the CDS), the [i:2ag1rtm5]IP rights to all of their past work[/i:2ag1rtm5].
[/quote:2ag1rtm5]
Meaning non CDS works as well - or just the works for the CDS?[/quote:2ag1rtm5]

Presumably just work that is part of public infrastructure, but as I understood the proposal on the table, someone who refused to sign would not be welcome on any Guild project, even if that project did not result in infrastructure or even building. Please correct me if I got this wrong.

[Beathan]

Bromo --

I am judging CARE on three things: 1. its past behavior; 2. its current platform; and 3. Michel Manen's public positions. Perhaps I am misinterpreting this information -- but I certainly have the right as a citizen to express my concerns and as a candidate to engage in contrast campaigning. I, and many others, have great hope for the prospect that you and Mizou and other CARE members of goodwill can wrestle control of the party from Michel Manen and put it on a new course away from personality cult politics of total engagement and control of citizens lives. However, until we see a move away from Michel, we will continue to be skeptical of CARE.

That said, the Mizou commission, while Mizou agreed to chair it, has been a longterm project of all parties. Michel's claim that the commission arose from the sole efforts of CARE is exactly the kind of over-reaching credit-grabbing that has offended so many of the rest of us.

In terms of my temper -- I have been very measured in my posts. My posts have been analytical in nature. It is true I don't mince words. I don't care for mincing of words. It wastes time none of us has.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

[quote:kya8rng4]That said, the Mizou commission, while Mizou agreed to chair it, has been a longterm project of all parties. Michel's claim that the commission arose from the sole efforts of CARE is exactly the kind of over-reaching credit-grabbing that has offended so many of the rest of us. [/quote:kya8rng4]

That is an outright lie. The RA was planning to pass a new Citizenship Act drafted by a few individuals, with no public consultation at all, designed to restrict even more access to new citizens to the CDS under the guise of allowing couples to buy lots together.

That is why I resigned. At that point, Beathan, you hadn't attended a single RA meeting since the elections, so your ingnorance of the facts is understandable, even if not excusable.

I then proposed that 4 commmissions be held, as follows:

[quote:kya8rng4]1. A Citizenship Commission with wide popular consultation (as opposed to 3 or 4 individuals on the forums) designed to define what we all mean by CDS citizenship and what we could do to become a more open and inviting community, rewarding all those who wish to join us and put their time and effort in building our community (possibly chaired by Claude);

2. A Public Service Commission with wide popular consultation (as opposed to 3 or 4 individuals on the forums) designed to discuss the issues of non-cumulation of public functions and of term limits in all public institutions (possibly chaired by Aliasi);

3. A Constitutional Convention with wide popular consultation (as opposed to 3 or 4 individuals on the forums) designed to address the unacceptable current state of our institutions where the Scientific and Judiciary branches cumulate in effect in only one individual, and re-establishing these branches as real and active institutions in the CDS, based on democratic principles and the rule of law (possibly chaired by Gwyn).

4. A Public Servants' Ethics Commission with wide popular consultation (as opposed to 3 or 4 individuals on the forums) designed to set up new standards of public behaviour for all public servants, addressing in particular personal accusations, attacks, insults, insinuations and negative campaigning in all public fora of the CDS (possibly chaired by Sudane).

The Commissions would submit reports and draft legislations on their particular topics to the RA by June 15th and resulting legislation would be tabled and voted on by the RA by June 30th. [/quote:kya8rng4]

I then drafted the original text of the Citizenship Commission ans posted it here: http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=1085.

The text of the Citizenship Commission Bill was then redrafted and watered down by the CSDF Representative, passed by the RA, and chaired by Mizou.

Those are the facts. The rest is fluff. As for your other offensive and defamatory remarks regarding me and CARE, I will not dignify you with an answer. You are beneath contempt.

[Beathan]

Michel --

Redefining citizenship has been a longterm project of the CDS. The Commission approach has been part of this discussion from the beginning. CARE is not responsible for either the debate or the commission -- this was a collective effort. I think that we should acknowledge and applaud such efforts as examples of the success of the CDS as a multi-party system.

Michel -- you resigned from the RA because you misunderstood the legislation proposed by Pat and the CSDF. You indicated that the legislation, which would clearly open up and expand CDS citizenship, would have the opposite effect merely because it would prevent current citizens from "buying" votes by shipping in people and sponsoring them by paying their tier (in a Roman or mafia-esque "client system".)

I had not attended the RA until that point because I was not a member of the RA. I chose, until I became an RA member, to participate in the ongoing discussions of policy through the forums. No citizen should be penalized because of their choice of communication medium provided the medium is effective. The forums, for all of our squabbling, are, in my opinion, the best and most effective means for full and complete communication we have.

I understand that you proposed the four commissions. However, your proposal did nothing new and did not add anything to the discussion other than some specificity. Two of your commissions were flat-out bad ideas. The way you defined the scope of all four commissions was improperly loaded. The RA took the kernel and tossed the chaff -- as the RA should do.

You were also properly criticized for proposing your first legislation during the term you were elected to the RA after you resigned. It was noted that your presence on the RA was disruptive. Further, your misunderstanding of the pending legislation, shown clearly in your stated reasons for resigning, either indicates a lack of discernment or a dishonest desire to wilfully misinterpret proposals for personal political gain. In either case, you do not inspire confidence -- and CARE suffers from that lack of confidence to the extent it is seen as a projection of your personality and personal agenda.

I continue to hope that CARE will start acting from its democratic rhetoric, rather than using its rhetoric to disguise its undemocratic actions. Mizou did move us in that direction. Unfortunately, she was too busy to finish the job. I do have great hope -- as well as trepidation -- for the development of CARE into the future.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

There was nothing collective about it. The other parties wanted to keep the legislative process closed, citizenship restrictive and tied strictly to land ownership, effective control of the CDS in the hands of the same people who think it is their God-given right to decide everything for this community and shut out all other citizens except once every six months, at voting time. From the very beginning, from the moment it was founded, CARE proclaimed its mission as being to shake up this system, open it up, make it more inclusive, accountable, democratic. And we intend to continue to do so despite all attemps from people like you to portray us in a negative light.

Far from applauding the current party system, CARE intends to champion the principle of direct votes for candidates with no party votes (although such candidates would still remain members of parties and each party would be required to declare a minimum of 3 candidates well before the start of the elections). Whilst the appropriate proposed Commission will of course hold hearings in this matter and submit its conclusions to the RA, CARE will take leadership in ensuring that the repressive, oligarchic, unaccountable and anti-democratic party system in place today be abolished and replaced with a transparent, accountable, and truly democratic way of electing our representatives.

[Dnate Mars]

And this has to do with the new guild how??

And I am sure that you all realize that to have a true democracy there would be no RA. Every issue would be voted on by the people. The RA is a representative democracy at best.