Moderator: SC Moderators
Bromo Ivory wrote:No consensus would be required, Jon. Just 4 of 7 in the RA for a law, and 5 of 7 for an amendment.
While I would prefer a consensus driven thing such as this, I do not think many folks in the RA are currently consensus minded at the moment.
lol Bromo, I was using "consensus" in a less formal way -- to mean effective agreement of the population. Something that we should always strive for.
Back in the mists of time when I was a relative newbie in Neualtenburg (as it then was) I recall bumping into a lot of excited people on their way to the MoCA to unveil their plan for a new sim - Colonia Nova. Things were so much simpler then 
We held a contest and there was only one entrant! Fortunately it was a good one and the developers had a theme, maps (including one in 3D), plans for subdividing the territory, a website and some resources including textures. None of this is meant to be a criticism of current proposals, just a statement about how easy the previous RA had it!
We took a different turn with our plans for the 3rd sim. We voted on plans that were less well-developed with the aim being that the New Guild would work up that proposal and present it in full for the RA to approve so that the sim can be bought, terraforming and building take place and the new sim rented out.
I'm posting because I want to make clear that I hope this can be done largely through the New Guild rather than involving the RA in largely technical discussions. We may have got to a position though where the New Guild needs a steer. We've been discussing many different possibilities in this thread and in the one Sudane began - void sims, residential sims, fewer plots but larger, more plots but smaller, public space, private space, recreation etc. Most of this can be resolved by the New Guild I hope. But perhaps the RA could be asked to opine on a number of political decisions to break the logjam?
The following seem to be questions the RA could usefully answer, perhaps on the back of proposals from the New Guild?
What should be the proportion of public v. private land in the new sim?
Does the RA want to insist on a minimum number of plots? If so, how many?
How should the new sim's tier be paid for? Is it acceptable for rents to go up by 75% for example? Should the sim be paid for by the people residing in it or are we happy for NFS and CN residents to 'subsidise' the additional cost of a sim that costs US$295/yr as opposed to $195/yr?
There may be others the RA could usefully answer but these are the main ones that occur to me right now. What do others think? Would this be a good way to take us forward?
I would carefully re-read Gwyn's long post and make sure each body addresses only those topics within its purview. The Guild, for example, has no business deciding how a sim should be structured financially - that's the Treasurer's job within the budget as approved by the RA. And the sim theme cannot be radically changed by the Guild, ignoring the cititzens's choice as ratified by the RA (going from one full prim sim to four voids is such a radical change IMHO).
Michel --
I agree with you -- with some reservations. First, I think that the Guild should be involved -- in an advisory capacity -- in every stage of these considerations, including those that are ultimately within another entity's final jurisdiction. More particularly, as a member of the RA, I want to have the building committee's take in general (and Rose's in particular) on these proposals.
That said, I may be wrong -- but I recall that a key feature of Rose's proposal was that it would emphasize private land and have less public space than we have in our other sims. However, I may be misremembering this. Also, this issue may have been considered and modified since the time of the proposal. However, some current discussions appear to be moving us in exactly the opposite direction -- away from private and into public (or at least collective) space.
My concern is that the RA can be ham-handed when asked to decide on the spot matters that have been developed, explored and scrutinized elsewhere.
Beathan
michelmanen wrote:I would carefully re-read Gwyn's long post and make sure each body addresses only those topics within its purview. The Guild, for example, has no business deciding how a sim should be structured financially - that's the Treasurer's job within the budget as approved by the RA. And the sim theme cannot be radically changed by the Guild, ignoring the cititzens's choice as ratified by the RA (going from one full prim sim to four voids is such a radical change IMHO).
No one has proposed radically changing the sim's theme. It should be noted that the proposal was not as detailed as that for CN, thereby causing many issues to arise which did not occur during the building of CN, such as the current debates over number of saleable properties, one full prim sim versus four voids, sim ownership etc.
I think that addressing these issues via discussions in-world and on these forums is a healthy aspect of building a community as well as a sim. I hope the members of the RA are listening carefully and feeling the pulse of their constitutents so that when these matters arise, they know the feelings of the citizenry and take that into account as they debate and vote on the issues. It is best to consider these issues now, before the sim is ordered and placed on the grid rather than after fact.
Salzie Sachertorte wrote:No one has proposed radically changing the sim's theme. It should be noted that the proposal was not as detailed as that for CN, thereby causing many issues to arise which did not occur during the building of CN, such as the current debates over number of saleable properties, one full prim sim versus four voids, sim ownership etc.
This is exactly right. The problem we are running into is very interesting. Farm land is usually less costly than urban land and this allows lighter development. In this case we have the opposite situation -- the farm land is more costly than our urban spaces.
The writeup of the Alps proposal I have from the winning team in June talks about rock dwellings, chateaux or castle on "larger" 2048 m2 lots, farm cottages, and farm houses, and even a small village. It is clear from this that it was not intended that it all be 4,500 m2 lots with double prims. If anything, I see the work we are now doing on the plot map as moving closer to the proposal as it was presented.
The Monastery is already built, with its three parts: Chapel, Cloister, Library. The little rooms behind are now a unique meeting room. We are working now on details and we are perfecting it. A group of 5 persons have worked on the project. Please, feel free to visit it.
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Quincentival/98/90/77
We have given to this building the announced size: 40m x 60 m. That means that we need at least 2400 msq. The plot with the name Monastery has 32x64. It doesn't fit exactly with the building. Could it be a little bit larger? Can we cut the plot near the road? An other option: we can install it on the plot A1. In this case, the building seems to have green land around (in the first case, the building is between roads).
Anyway I find the rest of the proposal great. We just have to find a place for the Monastery as it is built.
I can announce also that the group for the NGO was created. It is called Virtus (you can read the reason of the choice in the description of the group). We will prepare a charter to be discussed. If you will join this group to discuss, please tell me. I'll invite you (but I am away for one week).
I would like to add that the monastery is a project in the interest of the public, not a private retreat, but an open place, and will hopefully be a center of social life. IMO the charter should adress the needs of the setteled citizenry - the prim support above 1k could be used for temporary building (instead of a sandbox without another purpose), and it should welcome and support new cds citizens as well. You do not have to join a group to join the discussion. Think of what you feel is needed, and have your saying.
Let me go ahead and be a little personal on needs: I am living on 2x144 sqm - and i am still trying to make something convincing of at least one of the plots. I see examples around me, so i know it can be done very well. In fact i do not need more than one of them. But sometimes the ceiling is coming down on my head - and i tp away to build somewhere else. On my private ground, because public sandbox means interruptions.
If the monastery would serve the purpose to offer space, primmage (and permissions) for temporary use in an atmosphere that is not isolated nor exposed to the usual sl madness, it would make a lot of sense to me. And if i could see what others are working on, it would make even more sense. And if someone is not as down to the surface patch as me, I would welcome it as a complement. A monastery can be a frame for this kind of sharing, without doubling the guild, because the guild adresses public projects. Is the development of new fachwerks a public project? I doubt it. Do we need to leave the cds to build them somewhere else (or hold huge private parcels in the cds to have the resources)? As long as this is the case, we have a lot of people half at home here. I call that a need.
Your turn appropriate thread http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=1334
As to the Sim proposal as it is now: i followed this discussion with strong interest, and i really appreciate the devotion of all contributors. An oligarchy would not bother to drill a thick board like this. But you may excuse that i try to focus on this particular non private interest without any modesty, now that the frame design is fixed and the details in question. ty
Hello Tan,
It's good to hear you call for ideas on what public purpose the Monastery should serve besides what Arria mentioned. And I think some building space for private projects could be convenient and serving the community indeed. But,
I think that it should be primarily the New Guild's aim to encouraging building, and not the Monastery's. And not only for NG projects. The NG itself is served by people who are interested in building SL content and have these skills. Take for example the build that you and Brian are working on: Is it a NG project? No. Does it coincide with the NG's interests? Yes. The same for a new type of Fachwerk that I would have put in the Undeveloped Area. I hope the new NG secretary and Faculty chair will agree with this.
But let's talk about how the Monastery can benefit the community.
PS. This should be in it's own thread
Below are the plot sizes and areas for proposals 2 and 3:
Proposal 2:
type count m2 m2 * count x 2
A/B 9 2048 18432 36864
C 2 1024 2048 4096
D 8 512 4096 8192
-----
49152
Proposal 3:
type count m2 m2 * count x 2
A 2 4096 8192 16284
B 4 2048 8192 16384
C 4 1024 4096 8192
D 8 512 4096 8192
-----
49152
I have prepared and published a spreadsheet showing purchase and tier prices for "Proposal 2" and "Proposal 3", as identified in the prior post on this thread. The important columns are highlighted.
"Edit 11/4/07" I have added "Proposal 4" based on data that I have just received from Jon this morning. It differs from Proposal 3 in this it adds the Monastery as an additional parcel.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... qSY_ri45AA
Notes:
1) The US$ > L$ conversion factor is 296, which I use to cover exchange fees and possible negative flucuations.
2) Tier calculations are for "Stand Alone Tier", meaning that the tier collected for this sim only supports this sim, and the tier for our other two sims would remain unchanged.
3) "Budget Factor" is simply shorthand for the proportion of budgeted revenues over the expense of paying LL for the LL tier. This additional amount pays for both the other expenses of the CDS plus growth to our reserves. It also covers us when not all parcels are sold and thus generating revenues. The Budget Factor for NFS is approximately 1.4 and for CN approximately 1.7.
Sudane...................................