Moderator: SC Moderators
Bromo --
::sigh::
Jsut because we talk and debate both inworld and out does not mean that we are [i:pnrjafyt]just[/i:pnrjafyt] a talking shop. We are more than that. The proposal would limit us to that -- or expose land owners to unacceptable risk.
Well, I guess we can see how each of us will vote when this comes before the RA.
Beathan
Bromo --
It is clear from your responses that you have discounted the opinions of those of us who participated in this debate by posting on the forums, and that your report unjustifiably privileges the inworld discussions. Indeed, you say as much by indicating that you believe that your report captures the spirit of the discussions.
Your report was not intended to capture the spirit of the inworld discussions. It was intended to fully sound out and present the entirety of the debate -- and to make independent recommendations based on the information presented in the debate. It does not do so. It fails to address positions raised in the forums, but not inworld. It apparently presents as its conclusions the thrust of the inworld discussions, without moderating those views by reference to the forums or to any independent judgment.
Based on these obvious defects of the report, I conclude that the report is not the report the legislation called for. Therefore, I will be asking the RA to reject the report as written and to require that it be resubmitted with proper attention given to all views raised in the debate -- including those raised on the forums.
Beathan
Hello all. I am learning from this debate and appreciate it.
Paring away the irrelevant eminities, I see more agreement than disagreement here. I'd like to toss out a few questions to test and focus that agreement. I would rather see you find agreement, over time, than see either side rush to the RA with a proposal that the other finds repellent (thus killing the issue without any progress).
1. Bromo, what's wrong with Beathan's idea of service, to make the emotional "commitment" to CDS a little sharper? Or maybe a payment and a delay and some voting history, or a payment and a delay and attendance at a few meetings, or SOMETHING more than just L$ on the spot? Maybe a forfeitable deposit, I dunno. Seems to me that there would be room for compromise here. It's not irrational to be skeptical about whether communitarian spirit evidenced by a one time L$ payment. Even those RL nations that ALLOW immigration generally require *something* -- a citizenship test or course, an application cooling period, or etc.
2. Beathan, I have to admit I was about to push back, until I read your last post.
> I am not opposed to delinking citizenship from landownership,
> provided it is done in a way that preserves our territorial idea
> and our personal commitments to our sims.
Earlier comments gave me some concern. Too strong a concentration on exclusionary behavior and banishments is no recipe for community. And not really consistent with the spirit of SL, nor the kind of world in which I want to live. An exclusive focus on landowning seemed, well, a litle medieval and classist to me. So I was relieved to see you are focused on "investment" issues, not just land ownership. How much room is there to compromise about what kinds of acts or attributes would demonstrate ''investment"?
3. Beathan, I also am concerned that you say the Commission report does not reflect correct views. Do you mean you disagree with it? Or that it misstates the predominance of views expressed? I'd like to understand whether I'm hearing an impassioned minority report, or an assertion that the report's alleged a majority view is inaccurate.
(It also seems clear that our elected reps here have a hole in their consensus around the preeminence of these web based forums. Maybe future commissions need to specify which channels are used? Something for further thought.)
Thanks. JP
Jamie --
Thanks for your reply.
I have long been concerned with the "classist" nature of citizenship through land ownership -- as it excludes people who could participate and add to our community on the (I think bad) grounds that they cannot afford to pay land tier. A fee-based citizenship does not solve this problem. The very people I would want to include will be excluded because they cannot afford to pay the fee. Additionally, it would allow people to buy into our community without otherwise investing in it (the point you caught -- but which Bromo still has not).
That said, I think that, like all communities, we have to police ourselves and set and enforce standards of behavior in our community. The way we have done this in the past is by banishment. (That is the way SL provides us -- allowing us to ban avs from our sims -- but not allowing us much other control.) My support for formal banishment procedures is not a support for wholesale, freeform banishment -- but the opposite. The fact is that we will (we must) banish people who are offending us. However, I think such people are entitled to some due process and protection of law. The way to provide this protection to the banished is to have a formal banishment procedure to follow. Thus, my proposals in this regard are actually intended to protect people who are or would otherwise be banished.
With regard to Bromo's report -- my determination that it should be rejected has nothing to do with the ways in which I disagree with it. Rather, I believe that it simply is not the report required by the legislation setting up the commission. Bromo, in describing how he drafted the report and how he reached his conclusions, has described a thought process that unjustifiably and improperly privileged the inworld conversations over the forum posts. Further, Bromo's statement that the report merely reflects what he believes was the consensus at the inworld discussions, without providing any independent analysis or reasoning, does not do the job the report was commissioned to do. The report is supposed to assess all information and make independent, analytical recommendations to the RA. The report does not do so -- so it should be sent back for revision.
Further, the question of whether the report reflects the "majority" view is not really answerable. I have reviewed these forums and read the transcripts of the inworld meetings, and I think that the following statements are true: 1. a majority of the citizens have not participated in the process either by posting on the forums or by attending inworld meetings; 2. both on the forums and inworld, there is no majority opinion that has emerged among those citizens who are participating -- but there are plurality positions; 3. the inworld plurality position is given pride of place in the report -- and is different from the forum plurality position, which is given little weight; 4. the group-based option, which I think is the best bet for a compromise majority position, is not even explored in the report because it was not explored inworld.
Based on this, the members of the RA are left to make informed guesses about the best policy to pursue. That best policy might be supported by a majority, or a strong plurality, of the citizens -- or it might not be. That best policy might accord with the platform of one or more of our parties -- or it might not be in accord with any platform. In other words, the citizenship committee -- even when its results are properly presented (which they have not been) -- will not answer the questions. The members of the RA will have to use our best judgment to fashion the best policy.
Also, with regard to the "hole" around the opinion as to whether these forums matter -- and whether future legislation should specify where the important information is to be gleaned -- the current legislation did so. That legislation specified that the debate was to occur inworld and [i:130axen6] on these forums [/i:130axen6] and that the report would reflect information found in both places. Thus, the problem is that Bromo has failed to follow the mandate of the legislation. We cannot legislate around that -- we have to expect our legislative mandates to be followed.
Assuming that Bromo corrects his report and actually fairly reports the entire discussion and then makes independent and analytical recommendations, chances are that I will still disagree with Bromo's recommendations. This should not surprise anyone. He and I represent different parties and work from different policy assumptions. However, in such case, I would not reject the report. Rather, I would vote against Bromo's recommendation when the RA considers the matter.
Beathan
On behalf of the CSDF :
[i:3v8tbd4c]a big thanks to all the people who participated in this important debate by sharing their opinions and valuable insights![/i:3v8tbd4c]
Second, my thanks to Bromo Ivory for the all work he did to organize this commission's activities.
Sadly (considering how many people spent time on this) the report does not give us factual data and numbers that tell us how many people supported each category of change. (my personal opinion) Contrary to, for example, Patroklus' post [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 0:3v8tbd4c]here[/url:3v8tbd4c]. Without this data, the report is barely usable and we can only guess whether Bromo has based his recommendation on his gut feeling or (I'm sure this is not the case) based it on his faction's agenda.
Also, I think it's too bad that Bromo thought it was necessary to paint the other factions as 'putting-self-before-community' and 'conservative',
quote: [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 3:3v8tbd4c]"Fear that the electorate would change in some manner unfavorable to a particular faction"[/url:3v8tbd4c]
quote: [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 2:3v8tbd4c]"and the party to which you belong has no interest in any sort of change "[/url:3v8tbd4c]
I can assure you that the CSDF members have a wide variety of opinions, that we have 3 representatives with their own set of brains, and that we [i:3v8tbd4c]listen[/i:3v8tbd4c] to the community at large.
-- Sleazy Writer.