Citizenship Discussion (Forum Part of Commission)

[Bromo Ivory]

In the interest of engaging the greatest number of people, I would like to discuss people's thoughts on citrizenship - and how to define it.

I am placing the most salient excerpt form the constitution I found under "citizenship" -

"1. A citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators is a resident of SecondLife who has been granted title to any land by the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, and who holds title under the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, for as long as he or she holds such title. "

I think the thing I would be interested in discussion is the pros and cons of changing the above to not require ownership of land to be a citizen - but through payment of a minimum tier fee to CDS. [This has a couple of benefits - the money is the filter, would capture folks interested in being a member but not own land, or no suitable parcels are available, and would allow the CDS to accumulate funds that might assist in expanding a touch fster than currently]

So ... I know this is controversial and not everyone has the same ideas as I posted above ... so, let's discuss!

[Nikki]

This could possibly be a good idea. However, I have two questions about it:

1) Why would someone want to be a citizen of the CDS if they did not (virtually) live in it?

2) Can anyone rent living space within the CDS?

[Salzie Sachertorte]

Bromo -

Are you proposing a fee above and beyond a person's tier for land they own? Would a person just one such fee? Or a fee for each sim they posssess land in plus the tier? How much $L are you talking about? A nominal fee?

[Salzie Sachertorte]

[quote="Nikki":15gcfudt]
1) [color=blue:15gcfudt]Why would someone want to be a citizen of the CDS if they did not virtually live in it?[/color:15gcfudt]][/quote:15gcfudt]

Well, I'm a citizen, though I live elsewhere in Second Life. I stay in my wagon when I'm in the CDS, I consider it to be my mountain campground. I'm sure we would attract even more argumentative folks who want a hand in the governance, even if they don't hold land here.

[quote="Nikki":15gcfudt]
2) [color=blue:15gcfudt]Can anyone rent living space within the CDS?[/color:15gcfudt][/quote:15gcfudt]

As of now, rental is not allowed in the CDS. The reasons for this rule are buried in discussions in the old LL's Neualtenburg forums, perhaps one of our long time residents can give us a synopsis of why that decision was made.

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Salzie Sachertorte":ervy9x87]Bromo -

Are you proposing a fee above and beyond a person's tier for land they own? Would a person just one such fee? Or a fee for each sim they posssess land in plus the tier? How much $L are you talking about? A nominal fee?[/quote:ervy9x87]

Hi Salzie -

I would not propose raising anyone's Tier fee, but to allow a class of landless citizen that would pay the same tier as for a 128m^2 plot of land in Neufreistadt (same as minimum citizenship tier), but would not actually need to own any land if they would be willing to pay the tier. (exact amounts are negotiable, of course, but this is where I am thinking right now)

Such a person would be a full citizen, with all the rights and so on, but would not have to own any land.

(And of course I am completely open to refinements, suggestions and so on - it is a slightly different business model than what we run with currently, but I think would be compatible - and I figure most attractive to those that were waiting for land to free up, or those that would not have the capital to purchase a suitable property)

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Nikki":1q5w9saw]
1) [color=blue:1q5w9saw]Why would someone want to be a citizen of the CDS if they did not virtually live in it?[/color:1q5w9saw][/quote:1q5w9saw]

I think we would be attractive to a few people, though not a cast of thousands, we'd pick up some folks who were civic minded and wanted to participate as citizens who were unable to find a suitable property, or were unable to afford the initial price of one.

[Dnate Mars]

I guess the only things I would ask is
a) Why would someone that has no land in the CDS want to make decisions on how the CDS is run?
b) Why would we want to have people that have no holdings in the CDS deciding what is best for the CDS?

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

Thanks for opening this issue again Bromo, because it needs to be dealt with. To me, this goes back to what the CDS is for; at one level, we're a property owners' association, with an interest in keeping our "neighborhood" nice. At another level though (and the real reason many of us live in the CDS), we want to explore the potential of democratic forms in a virtual world. We're learning to deal with issues like:
What issues do people feel comfortable having rules about in a virtual world?
How do we deal with anonymity in electing leaders?
What is the value of common space that doesn't really exist?
Can a person make a difference in other people's lives through their involvement in a virtual community?
etc.

With that concept in mind - that we exist for something more than just zoning land - let me address Dnate's questions.

[quote="Dnate Mars":3ldi0b2y]I guess the only things I would ask is
a) Why would someone that has no land in the CDS want to make decisions on how the CDS is run?[/quote:3ldi0b2y]

Many (most) of the CDS's decisions aren't about land. That's true in the last three RA sessions, anyway. Some people (like me) only own land because it's a requirement to take part in the community.

[quote:3ldi0b2y]b) Why would we want to have people that have no holdings in the CDS deciding what is best for the CDS?[/quote:3ldi0b2y]

Because the CDS is about more than zoning. This is especially true since we've become more than one sim. Perhaps a CDS government could focus on non-land issues, while the sims themselves could have POA's or local governments to deal with zoning. If we maintain the concept of one person, one vote (and have some way of checking to make sure that's really the case), then expanding the CDS shouldn't lead to class warfare over land, especially since it would be easy to (painlessly) join the ranks of the landless or the landed.

I would love to see us develop a shared vision of a higher calling - encouraging human/avatar rights throughout the metaverse, exploring and refining democratic forms that work in a semi-anonymous cross-cultural context, and expanding opportunities for meaningful use of SL.

[Nikki]

It does seem possible to make the CDS into a kind of group, within which it would govern virtual land. Already CDS land does not have to be contiguous (like the current two sims are not and a franchulate would not be). Already individual avatars do not need to own land to be citizens (like Salzie described above).

Such a concept reminds me of a group I am a member of called Swiss Ambassadors. To join this group it costs L$10, and this money goes toward the expansion and maintenance of the two “Switzerland” sims. One major difference with this group, however, is it does not hold elections.

As Gxeremio said, it would be critical there be some way to determine each registered voter was an individual and not an alt. So far as I know Linden Lab has not yet worked out a good way to ensure this is the case. Perhaps when its planned adult-identification process is complete this will become more verifiable.

[Dnate Mars]

That is what my biggest fear is, a take over attempt. We are a small group of people, and it is not that hard to make a bunch of alts to try and rig an election. How do you prevent this, I haven't a clue.

[Bromo Ivory]

Great discussion so far - I am not going to interfere in discussion but to clarify one point Nikki was making - each citizen must be able to own individually or in a group more than 128m^2 of land:

[quote="Nikki":3b64g9wf]Already individual avatars do not need to own land to be citizens (like Salzie described above).[/quote:3b64g9wf]

Avatars "owning land" has not changed constitutionally, an avatar must hold deed to a parcel in order to be a citizen, where the comment came from is it can be either (or both) as part of a group or individually:

More than 1 avatar may jointly own a plot as a group - provided minimum provisions are met per avatar (128m^2 per member of land holding group)

The provisions for the extension are in NL 5-9. Ironically referring to Neufreistadt - though I saw no law update to include Colonia Nova .... any SC explanation or have I missed something?:

[url:3b64g9wf]http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... age=NL+5-9[/url:3b64g9wf]

Text Below:

This extends the option of land ownership in Neufreistadt to couples and groups of citizens. Among others, this allows joint ownership of land by people in committed relationships, social, educational, and religious organizations.

1. Plots of land in Neufreistadt may be owned by couples or groups of citizens. All members must be citizens before joining the group.

2. A member's citizenship is maintained if the area of the group land divided by the number of citizen members plus any Neufreistadt land that the citizen owns outside of group is equal or more than 128 m2.

3. If the citizen leaves a land holding group they have two months to reestablish their holdings to meet the above criteria.

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Dnate Mars":1syr9hro]That is what my biggest fear is, a take over attempt. We are a small group of people, and it is not that hard to make a bunch of alts to try and rig an election. How do you prevent this, I haven't a clue.[/quote:1syr9hro]

Since there is little defense against it currently, this would be a general concern, I think. I don't know how much of an issue it is currently, though.

If we were to decouple land ownership from citizenship - to allow interested and committed persons to join CDS - what kind of safeguards would be appropriate? (and reasonable? And how would you do it?)

[Dnate Mars]

The defense currently is that you must own at least 128 of land. If you are going to try and take over the CDS you will have to find land for each person. So that means that you would have to find a lot of land that is for sale to take it over. If it is decoupled then all you need is a good amount of cash.

[Dnate Mars]

The reason for using the term "Neufreistadt' may be because the CDS term wasn't in wide use at the time, if at all. I am pretty sure when that was passed, it was for all of what is now called the CDS.

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Dnate Mars":1cdgge1n]The defense currently is that you must own at least 128 of land. If you are going to try and take over the CDS you will have to find land for each person. So that means that you would have to find a lot of land that is for sale to take it over. If it is decoupled then all you need is a good amount of cash.[/quote:1cdgge1n]

The electorate is likely to change with the addition of a 3rd SIM. If we are to grow, we should be prepared for the face of the electorate to change in quantity and character several times as we add additional SIMs and expand our citizen base. This is a good thing, and a sign of healthy growth.

But having said that, I do acknowledge the fear that you have about someone "gaming" the system - and believe a solution to this hypothetical problem can be found - which is part of the task of the commission.

Why would we want to be motivated to look at changes to citizenship?

I believe our greatest enemy is apathy, not political shenanigans, 26 people declined to vote in the last election - meaning a full 1/3 of our citizens weren't motivated to vote. If we need to be paranoid - it should be that participation and interest gets lower in CDS - and I really believe that if democracy fails in CDS it will be due to lack of interest, not corruption (though we should always be vigilant against corruption nonetheless, I haven't seen it in CDS - though we are quick to call each other that at election time! ).

So, Dnate, after all that I said, and your expressed concern - what would you think we need to do?