"Adopt a plot" Idea

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

"Adopt a plot" Idea

Post by Bromo Ivory »

I see a couple of camps in thsi debate -

How about someone wanting to be a citizen "adopts" 128m^2 of the public space, limited by the amount of public space on offer. They would not have the right ot build on it - though they would be financing the land plots in the public area. This would accomplish 2 things:

1. Finacially, larger public spaces would be economic - and posisbly used a bit more!
2. People would effectively "own" in trust anyway, CDS
3. Limits the # of citizens by the plots.

I know a lot of details need to be worked out - but this looks like a possible compromise?

(I thought of this when a local public radio station is tryin got buy a new transmitter and is doing an "adopt a watt" campaign)

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

User avatar
Arria Perreault
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:14 pm

Post by Arria Perreault »

As I try to find ways to finance the Monastery as public place in the new sim, I think that it is a good idea.
I can imagine that some people buy a house to be citizen and don't really need it or use it. In RL, we are all "virtual owner" of roads and infrastructures.

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Bromo

It's an innovative idea and I like the fact that you're thinking laterally in order to find a way forward.

I'm not sure it differs too much from the Citizenship Tax that has already been proposed though. After all, what's the difference between
1. You pay a fee based on the cost of a 128m2 plot but own no land, and
2. You 'adopt' 128m2 of public land, pay the same fee and can't build on it?

It seems to me that the only difference is that the latter idea limits the number of landless citizens to 'CDS public space in m2'/128 rather than being limited by, for example, a proportion of the number of citizens who hold citizenship by virtue of land ownership. This would mean there could be quite a few of these landless, 'sponsor' citizens attached to Neufreistadt rather than Colona Nova because there is relatively more public space in NFS than CN. If anyone has the stats handy we could work out how many additional citizens this idea would enable us to have, and the distribution between NFS and CN.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

We don't need any limits on citizens. Anyone ready to pay a citizenship fee and participate should be allowed the oppportunity to become one. Anything else is a direct barrier to our growth and development and is entirely retrograde and anti-democratic.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Michel --

Your statement begs a critical question -- what kind of "participation" do we count? I think that the consensus is that we are a virtual community located in a virtual space. We require, as participation, that citizens participate in our space. This might mean that we require that citizens own part of that space -- or we might be able to define some other form of participation. However, the critical point is that this participation has a location -- and it is not antidemocratic to insist on ties to this location.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

I agree with you. But ties and participation does not necessaily imply "land ownership" -especially since such ownership is virtual in any case. What I cannot understand are people who want to narrow the very parameters of the discussion so as to restrict any possible out come to their own preferred solution of keeping numbers low irrespective of any possible future interest in our community.

Leon
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:55 am
Contact:

Post by Leon »

Would someone explain to me why we are debating a real world solution to a situation that doesn't exist in the CDS?

No-one is born into the CDS, unlike in RL where we all have a national identity and eventually qualify to 'vote' ... if we adhere to the laws etc.

This situation doesn't exist in the CDS. Currently, everyone chooses to be be a resident in a simulator in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators. The key words being choose and simulator?

What exactly do we to gain by increasing the number of political party members without a corresponding expansion of territory? And more importantly what about the current system of having residents pay for the CDS is broken? What is it we are trying fix?

Maybe I'm just naive.
Leon

User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Post by Bromo Ivory »

Leon -

I suppose it depends upon what you feel the CDS is supposed to do - its mission. We are also talking about that elsewhere.

I would say the most significant thing that CDS is pursuing is to find a way to create a persistent environments in a medium that is by definition ephemeral. We solve that through democratic participation.

I have found the healthiest most vibrant communities not only have their finances in order - but have and recruit a vibrant community. I beleive that at this stage of our development we have a stable government, but the big spectre of "apathy" still remains.

I think limiting the most meaningful participation to those that "purchase land" (one of your criticisms of the thread in general is that it is using real life things to solve SL problems, and "land ownership", I submit, is one of those things as well).

I think in having people "purchase" plots of public land that is held in trust by CDS as a way to bridge the gap and "accomplishes" a mechanism by which we can attract active citizens.

As you can see, Michel and I are not of a like mind on this - but nevertheless the "problem" we see is apathy in the SIMs by the CDS as a whole - we are hoping this program will start building a community that extends the overall mission of "persistence"

"A persistent community is an active one"

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Leon
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:55 am
Contact:

Post by Leon »

Bromo,

I can't be bothered to argue the point. :wink: We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I see this proposal similarly to the CDS opening an overdraft at a bank. The CDS is going to pay for the extra 'citizens' one way or the other. And with added interest!

This proposal, along with the general discussion about Citizenship is based on the idea that the CDS can getting something for nothing. I just don't see the proposed benefits outweighing the costs.

Anyway, as this is a democracy I'm guessing we'll just have to let the citizens decide. (Via the RA ...)

L

User avatar
Moon Adamant
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:26 pm

Post by Moon Adamant »

For Pat:

NFS has between35% and 40% public land and CN has rigorously 10% public land.

This would mean, if we are talking *plots* of 128 m2:

up to 205 plots of those in NFS
up to 51 plots in CN

Dunno how the new payment sys would deal with it.

User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

[quote="michelmanen":2j923qys]I agree with you. But ties and participation does not necessaily imply "land ownership" -especially since such ownership is virtual in any case. [/quote:2j923qys]

I agree, Michel. I do not like the gentry-principle very much. Furthermore a Citizen should be valued independently of her activities and contributions, that is an individual choice. If people want to join the CDS, they should have a chance to do so.
But do we have to get to the bottom of the relation virtuality-reality and the correspondence theory of truth to have progress on the citizenship discussion? I hope not - obviously we can neither get rid of the First Life analogies, nor of the fundamental simplifications, restrictions and fictional elements of the SL design.
I am still thinking in First Life analogies: once i left my home town and went to a city-state with a backpack and a tent. I rented a place and the administration gave me Citizen status. Now help me out please: do we buy a SL parcel, or do we pay redemption and rent it? Sometimes i feel as if we were building a third space craft to build a mother ship out here - and i am not old enough to feel the claustrophobia you suffer from - please correct me if i misinterprete your words again.

[quote="michelmanen":2j923qys]What I cannot understand are people who want to narrow the very parameters of the discussion so as to restrict any possible out come to their own preferred solution of keeping numbers low irrespective of any possible future interest in our community.[/quote:2j923qys]

The cap does not fit to anyone i know...

Edit: ah, excuse, me, on topic -
yes, i would have rented one single piece of the road when i came here...

Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”