What is 'the CDS'?

[Patroklus Murakami]

Lately, the question 'What is the CDS?' has come up. Partly this has been because we need to be clear when work is done for 'the CDS' we know who it has been done for. I'd like to think of this slightly more widely though so that we fix the legalistic issues but don't get too hung up on the technicalities so that we miss what's special about 'the CDS'.

I found this on the front page of the CDS wiki and I think it's a good starting point: "The Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) is a self-governed community, whose purpose is to enable ownership of high-quality public, private, and open-space land; create a themed yet expressive community of public and private builds; and implement novel democratic forms of self government within Second Life." I would add that the CDS is the citizens, territory, public property and institutions of state and that the CDS is represented by those institutions (i.e. the RA, SC and Chancellor 'represent' the CDS to the outside world).

I think we should add something like this to the Preamble of the Constitution so when people ask 'What is the CDS?' we have a ready answer. What do others think?

[Beathan]

Pat --

This is a great idea. It is both a more fundamental and a more useful discussion that MM's proposed attack on Classic Liberalism.

Rather than transform the CDS into something unrecognizable, we should come to a full understanding of what the CDS is -- both so that we can explain it to prospective citizens and so that we can discover and root out real problems (rather than problems of the kind "I am not in power -- how can I change that?" or "the CDS is not engaged in an experiment in Sharia like El-Andalus, how can I change that?").

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

If you want to create a political-agenda neutral "civics FAQ" - quoting from the constitution and relevant laws what and how the CDS operates - this is a good thing. And a great tool of outreach!

I will warn that I have been involved in RL exercises - and avoid the "mission statements" because it creates huge cynicism, and can create bitter divides.

It makes me a bit nervous when, in Beathen's post" it implies that it is good, but not what Michel wants - that we could head down the divisive path - and if it were turn into that I would want to suspend any and all activity on this right away!

And looks like my connection is much better now (I crashed out in the middle of a CARE meeting) ... so I will head in world!