Citizenship Discussion (Forum Part of Commission)

[Fernando Book]

[quote="michelmanen":ey7a2sf9]Your condominium meetings are about real space in the real world; the community gets created BECAUSE all individuals share the same real space; here, no one shares the same real space and the virtual land is simply a tool for the creation of the real SL community.
Its totally wrong, therefore, to make such paralles betwen RL and SL and not appreciate the uniqueness and difference of SL, in all its magnitude and variables, from RL.[/quote:ey7a2sf9]
Our CDS meetings are about virtual space in the virtual world; the community gets created BECAUSE all individuals share the same virtual space.
As Tanoujin has noticed resources are not infinite, and we have to manage with their scarcity (as in the real world).
Our space may be a virtual one, but our dominion over it (framed by the LL TOS, and the laws) is real, and the right to exert that dominion should come out exclusively from ownership.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="Fernando Book":3iz011pf]Our CDS meetings are about virtual space in the virtual world; the community gets created BECAUSE all individuals share the same virtual space.
As Tanoujin has noticed resources are not infinite, and we have to manage with their scarcity (as in the real world).
Our space may be a virtual one, but our dominion over it (framed by the LL TOS, and the laws) is real, and the right to exert that dominion should come out exclusively from ownership.[/quote:3iz011pf]

Hi Fernando. Consider an example: I own land in the CDS (do you even know where? or should you care where?). I never have meetings or events on my land; I own it only so I can feel a part of the community, since the law currently says I have to own land to take part in the governance of the CDS. No law or act of the RA has effected or changed my use of my land in the more than a year since I've been in CDS. So how can it be said that the CDS itself, or the purpose of my involvement in the CDS, is to manage this virtual "resource" which actually has no use and contributes nothing to me or to the community? How would my experience be different if my legitimacy in the community was based on something other than paying land fees for property I don't use?

In a virtual world without borders, community is even more about affinity than in the real world. When I come into SL, I rarely "wake up" in the CDS. My experience of the community has next to nothing to do with whether I own land or not - it has to do with whether I spend time there, whether I care about what rules we agree on to frame our interactions, whether I take part in these forums or IM other people who consider themselves part of the CDS.

If the CDS decides to be simply a POA, then it is a lot less interesting than it could be, and a lot less worthy of time and attention.

I think we should strive to expand our community of affinity, stressing the value of democracy, rule of law, and human rights as guiding principles for our interactions within SL.

[Fernando Book]

What I try to explain is that either the land is unnecessary to the building of the community, and then we should have to have two structures, one to manage the land and the other to manage the community; or the land is essencial to the community, and that's the reason to couple the ownership of the land with the citizenship.

[Diderot Mirabeau]

I agree with Fernando that our basic community arises out of our interdependency on each other given that we share the same virtual spaces and thus would all like to participate in a democratic decision about how our common space changes and what rules should govern these changes. This is the sphere in which the concept of citizenship is relevant because a citizen is one, who has a democratic right to participate in decisions shaping his/her community [i:i73g5ihp]by virtue of having a stake in its development.[/i:i73g5ihp]

On top of this democratically governed community based on landownership I would argue that we are or have the opportunity to promote the general cause of democracy in virtual worlds. We have some experience in establishing infrastructure and legislation to put into practice the vision of democratically governing virtual communities. The ambition to promote the cause of democracy in virtual worlds brings all of us together as well but in my opinion this takes place at a more abstract level where no notion of citizenship is needed. Rather, what could beneficially formalise the discussion of democracy in a virtual world and channel our opinions and experience to a wider audience would be some sort of inter-governmental commonwealth / virtual united nations where the different communities meet, exchange experience and enter into joint ventures to help each other bring about democracy. In this sphere however there is no need for a concept of citizenship. Promoting democracy can be done in ways more sophisticated than the imperial aspiration of making every SL denizen a citizen of the CDS.

[Dnate Mars]

I am not against the idea that we eliminate the tie between land and citizenship, but I am unconvinced that we need to take this step now. Without land, what value do we really offer to anyone?

[Bromo Ivory]

Do we have to eliminate the tie entirely?

How would the "adopt a plot" figure into this?

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="Dnate Mars":3e3xlcoh]I am not against the idea that we eliminate the tie between land and citizenship, but I am unconvinced that we need to take this step now. Without land, what value do we really offer to anyone?[/quote:3e3xlcoh]

As I've argued already, for many people (myself included) the proposition of joining the CDS has the same value with or without land. I believe the CDS need not insist that people own land to be legitimate members of the community - especially those like me that aren't really using the land productively.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Bromo has posted his report on the Commission to date on the RA Discussion sub-forum. I'm reposting it here because I think analysis of the work of the Commission does not support Bromo's conclusions. I'd also like to open up the opportunity for comment and debate beyond the RA.[quote="Bromo Ivory":2s279ixv]Here is my report to the RA on the progress of the Citizenship Commission:

1. We had a meeting on 8 September and was attended by 7-9 people and had a discussion (transcript posted)
2. We have a large amount of ideas and arguments as well as consideration.
3. While there has been controversy on the Forums, I did not detect (even though I prompted) a resistance to change of citizenship in the in-world meetings - just a concern as to what the details might be.
4. The next steps would be to come up with some draft legislation and run it by people and include it as part of the report due on the 17th, though this will not be any sort of official position.[/quote:2s279ixv]If we look at the contributions to this debate inworld and in the forum discussions we have had 21 citizens post comments or take part in the inworld discussions. That in itself should give us pause for thought, that's less than 30% of our citizenry and this is an important change to our system of government; one that would fundamentally alter the nature of the CDS.

Now, I'm going to try to analyse what people have said in the discussions to gauge the level of support for the changes being debated. That's necessarily going to lump people together with different opinions and I apologise in advance if people feel I'm misrepresenting their opinions. I'm just going on what has been said, feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong

Of those 21, only 4 have expressed a strong preference for expansion in the way Bromo/Michel/CARE have suggested i.e. a citizenship fee or some variant thereof. I would put Bromo, Michel, Gxeremio and Pelanor in this camp. There are no doubt others who agree with this too, I'm just going on participation in the citizenship commission for this analysis.

The group expressing criticism, in varying degrees, for this proposal is much larger. I estimate that 10 people have expressed reservations about this idea. These include me, Dnate, Jon, Leon, Beathan, Fernando, Diderot, Rose, TOP/Sleazy and Delia. We differ as to our reasons but all have questioned the idea of delinking land ownership from citizenship and the consequences of that change.

There are also a number of people who are 'undeclared' on the basis of their forum and commission contributions. I'd estimate this group at about 7 including Nikki, Salzie, Aliasi, Sudane, Lilith, Tanoujin (though perhaps Tan is sympathetic to 'adopt a plot'?) and Gonta (though I think Gonta leans towards the 'change' proposition).

So, it seems to me that there is no consensus in favour of making the changes being considered. There's a small minority that is very much in favour of those changes, a larger group which is critical and many others with concerns and reservations. I don't think that there is 'lack of resistance to change', there's actually pretty substantial opposition! So, I hope that the Commission report will reflect that and not simply propose the radical changes mooted at the beginning of this discussion as if they have gained popular support when they clearly haven't.

[Bromo Ivory]

HI Pat -

Thanks for your input. My "conclusions" as it were was that [b:bhf86dee]on the forums[/b:bhf86dee] while there were loud and vocal discussions with a group disliking any sort of change - the [b:bhf86dee]discussions in world were primarily about change itself[/b:bhf86dee].

Now, I have not drawn my report together - so you can slide your daggers back into their holders and rather than attack me on the forums, lets try to WORK TOGETHER to draft up something rational. And I have also found that the forums are a lousy way to reach agreement - it will just stoke more and more flame wars.

If you really do not have any interest in change - and the party to which you belong has no interest in any sort of change or compromise (Such as on the Chancellor amendment proposal) then it would be very good to declare it right now and get it over with.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Bromo

I'm not attacking you. You posted a report on the progress of the Commission. I'm taking issue with your report, in particular with the accuracy of your summary of the commission's work to date. I fully understood the distinction you were drawing between the forum portion, where you find 'controversy', and the inworld discussions, where you find less 'resistance', but I find the distinction to be an artificial one that serves your purposes. Your interpretation makes it sound as if there is more support (and less 'resistance') for your position than actually exists. That's why I looked at what people said, in both the forum and inworld portions of the discussion, to produce an alternative analysis which demonstrated that only 4 citizens unequivocally support the kind of changes you want to see.

I'm prepared to consider changes that we can all agree with. I don't think anyone's written that off as a possibility. But, as it stands right now, I can see lots of good reasons not to delink citizenship from land ownership and few to favour moves in that direction. On the other hand, I'd be happy to support moderate, incremental changes such as allowing couples to join the CDS together rather than forcing them to jump through hoops as they have at present. (Currently a couple wishing to join the CDS must first purchase separate plots of land before joining the CDS. They can then form a group to hold land in common.) Would you support this idea?

[Bromo Ivory]

Pat,

If you read the transcripts (I am pretty sure you may have, but I have to ask) you will see that there was not any talk of what you are proposing.

I would have no problem supporting that as PART of a wider bill, but by itself, really doesn't speak to the discussion in the commission (lol - if you had attended you could bring it up and have citizenry discuss it!).

So, sure, I can support this, BUT I do believe it must be part of something wider than just that.

[michelmanen]

LOL! You mean just reviving your idea of last term and passing it off as positive incremental change when in fact all it does is mask the appallingnly and shamefully restrictive, closed, undemocratic, inwardlooking and "outsiders" averse citizenship system currently in force in the CDS? How typical..... You intervene in the running of the commission before it has submitted its final report, try to bully people to adopt your views, threaten to use your powers to invalidate any of the Commission's conclusions, and then pick a superficial change so as to portray yourself as a great leader capable to bring about "moderate, incremental, elegant" changes... Who do you think you are kidding???

[Justice Soothsayer]

A little ratcheting down of the rhetoric might be in order here, lest this become as rancorous and divisive as the late, great judiciary debates. Pat's summary of his view of where things stand was useful, as well as Bromo's update as to the commission proceedings. We should refrain from impugning their respective motives.

Thanks, Bromo, for posting transcripts and reminding us that the discussion in-world are different from those in the CDS Discussion forum; and Pat, thanks for reminding us that the forum postings differ from the discussions in-world.

I hope all will please continue to disagree without being disagreeable.

[Tanoujin Milestone]

[quote="michelmanen":t8ykmlgc]the appallingnly and shamefully restrictive, closed, undemocratic, inwardlooking and "outsiders" averse citizenship system currently in force in the CDS[/quote:t8ykmlgc]

It was this system i joined some weeks ago. Obviously I have not been apalled. And of course i did join to uphold a constitution that was refined throughout years of experience and consideration.

A Resident of the CDS is a Citizen. What does "Resident of the CDS" mean?

1. Individual land ownership (128 sqm)
2. Membership in a landholding group as a second step (x sqm/M >= 128)

I have read a lot of good arguments, and my opinion did not change: this system works fine, it could be moderately adapted to the needs of the people. that is what Pat is talking about, Michel.

If you want to change the constitution, you have to convince the people, instead you try to put shame on every person who does not radically change his/her opinion. I reject that. You are wasting your talents.

[michelmanen]

Thanks Tan, for reminding me of that