CDS Citizens Turnover Statistics - January -December 2007

[michelmanen]

As the new election approaches, let us take stock of the past year in CDS by examining the State of our Citizens over this time. We can do so best by examining the data provided by our citizenship lists for the two 2007 elections and the just published one for the upcoming 2008 vote. In brief, we now have exactly the same number of full citizens as we did in January 2007.

Over this period, 102 individuals have been CDS citizens. Only 37 citizens hold that title for all 3 elections. This makes for a hard core of 36 per cent of all 2007 CDS citizens.
During the same time, we gained 35 citizens. This means 34 per cent the total number of citizens joined CDS though 2007. This makes for a relative gain of 34 per cent of all 2007 CDS citizens.
During the same time, we lost 35 citizens. This means 34 per cent the total number of citizens left CDS though 2007. This makes for a relative loss of 34 per cent of all 2007 CDS citizens.
Consequently, the net gain/loss number and ratio of citizens during 2007 is of exactly zero.
Even more worryingly, the trend of the first half of the year, where we were able to gain 23 citizens and lose 14, for a net gain of 9 citizens, has been reversed during the current RA seesion, with a loss of 21 citizens and a gain of 12, for a net loss of nine citizens.

Three clear conclusions can be drawn from this raw data.

First, whilst SL has been undergoing geometric growth during 2007, CDS has experienced total stagnation, despite adding two sims during this time.

Second, the positive growth trend experienced during the last Claude Desmoulins/DPU-led RA has been completely reversed during the Patroklus Murakami/CSDF led RA.

Third, the oligarchical nature of our system of governance is clear and becoming ever more pronounced. The same number of citizens who owned land totaling barely more than one sim in January 2007 now own land totaling three sims; and the hard core of CDS citizens who have indeed been citizens during that entire period comprises barely more than a third of all those who have been CDS citizens during 2007 - and about 55 per cent of the current CDS citizenship.

Summing up, during 2007, CDS has gained about a third of its total population during this period, has lost about a third, and has kept a hard core of about a third.

These facts point an extremely worrying picture of our future, both in terms of population and territorial growth as well as financial sustainability, and is a damning indictment of the CSDF, the current RA LRA and the present Chancellor, who have mismanaged our community into a period of disastrous decline reversing all gains experienced during the preceding RA session.

Nothing can illustrate this better than the stark statistic that a full one third of the total CDS citizenship of 2007 (35 citizens) chose to leave CDS, and that we can count on little more than one third to remain in the long term committed to the CDS project.

Three years after its start, the CDS as a project is at a virtual standstill. Its citizenship is stagnating. Its core base is weak. Its growth of the first half of the year has been entirely reversed into an equivalent decline. More and more land is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The CDS has become a closed, failing oligarchy with no realistic future prospects of population growth, economic prosperity, territorial expansion.

We have a clear choice at the next elections: radical change in the way we govern ourselves - or continued stagnation and decline. Both the "more-of-the-same" option of the DPU and SP, and the "incremental change" strategy of the CSDF have utterly failed. Only CARE has advocated radical and fundamental change during the entire period of 2007.

The time has come for a CARE-led transformation of the CDS from a stagnating, declining, oligarchic, land- and power-concentrating group into an open, creative, growing, democratic, prosperous, diverse community. Over the next four weeks, CARE will present exactly such a creative, innovative, radical platform for transformation and renewal to achieve its vision of CDS as a Creative Community at the Leading Edge of the Metaverse. We will ask for your active support and enthusiastic endorsement.

The past record of CDU, SP, and CSDF - dominated RAs is clear and damning.
The time to stand up and make a difference for our common future has come for all of us.
Only CARE offers a consistent, clear, innovative vision for a great future for the CDS.
The need to make a clear choice is urgent and vitally necessary:
"Growth - not decline. Openness - not retrenchment. Prosperity - not stagnation."
This is CARE's vision for the January 2008 elections.
Vote with CARE for a Sustainable Future in 2008.

Date Lost Gained Total Net

January 2007: n/a n/a 67 citizens n/a
July 2007: 14 23 76 citizens +9
December 2007: 21 12 67 citizens -9

Total: 35 35 102 citizens 0

# Name Jan '07 July '07 Dec '07

01. Accomplished Mission No Yes Yes
02. adam hawthorne Yes No No
03. Alexicon Kurka No No Yes
04. aliasi stonebender Yes Yes Yes
05. amulius lioncourt Yes Yes Yes
06. arria perreault Yes Yes Yes
07. Antonius Camus No Yes Yes
08. Asha Pinion No Yes No
09. ashcroft burnham Yes No No
10. Audemar Negulesco No No Yes
11. Balder Laasonen No Yes Yes
12. beathan vale Yes Yes Yes
13. Biscuit Carroll No Yes Yes
14. benjamin noble Yes No No
15. Bjerkel Eerie No No Yes
16. blingbling cassowary Yes Yes Yes
17. blingo flare Yes Yes No
18. brian livingston Yes Yes Yes
19. Bromo Ivory No Yes No
20. bruno echegaray Yes Yes Yes
21. calmtommy lowell Yes Yes PR
22. carolyn saarinen Yes No No
23. chicago kipling Yes Yes Yes
24. claude desmoulins Yes Yes Yes
25. coyotestorm tully Yes Yes No
26. cyberneticia cela Yes Yes No
27. Dave Attenborough No Yes No
28. Conor Munro No No Yes
29. Danton Sideways No No Yes
30. delia lake Yes Yes Yes
31. dexter leopold Yes Yes No
32. dianne mechanique Yes Yes PR
33. diderot mirabeau Yes Yes Yes
34. dnate mars Yes Yes Yes
35. Draxtor Despres No Yes No
36. eldalin uram Yes Yes No
37. Erasmus McMillan No Yes Yes
38. fernando book Yes Yes Yes
39. flyingroc chung Yes Yes Yes
40. garnet psaltery Yes Yes No
41. Gelf Yalin No Yes Yes
42. glo gable Yes Yes No
43. Gonta Maltz No Yes Yes
44. gwyneth llewelyn Yes Yes Yes
45. gxeremio dimsum Yes Yes Yes
46. Jai Baxter No No Yes
47. Jamie Palisades No Yes Yes
48. jeremy bender Yes Yes No
49. jeremy utarid Yes Yes No
50. Jo Sapeur No Yes No
51. jon seattle Yes Yes Yes
52. jonty peel Yes Yes Yes
53. justice soothsayer Yes Yes Yes
54. Justus Yiyuan No Yes Yes
55. kazuhiko shirakawa Yes Yes Yes
56. kevn klein Yes No No
57. lee dimsum Yes No No
58. leon ash Yes Yes Yes
59. Lilith Ivory No No Yes
60. ludo merit Yes Yes Yes
61. melkor vostok Yes Yes No
62. michel manen Yes Yes Yes
63. midas commons Yes Yes No
64. mizou vavoom Yes Yes Yes
65. moon adamant Yes Yes Yes
66. MT Lundquist No No Yes
67. nightwind leonov Yes Yes No
68. oni jiutai Yes No No
69. Nikki Maertens (Sonja Strom) No Yes Yes
70. Nuberu Vella No Yes No
71. Odile Glineux No Yes Yes
72. patroklus murakami Yes Yes Yes
73. pelanor eldrich Yes Yes Yes
74. publius crabgrass Yes Yes Yes
75. ranma tardis Yes No No
76. Reuben Handrick No Yes Yes
77. Richie Deschanel No Yes Yes
78. roenik newell Yes No No
79. rose springvale Yes Yes Yes
80. rubaiyat shatner Yes Yes Yes
81. Rudy Ruml Yes No No
82. sadako shikami Yes Yes No
83. saladin salyut Yes Yes No
84. salzie sachertorte Yes Yes Yes
85. Samantha Fuller No Yes Yes
86. Satir DeCuir No No Yes
87. sijtse kuttelwascher Yes Yes Yes
88. Sigal Rau No No Yes
89. Stefan Fermi Yes No No
90. sudane erato Yes Yes Yes
91. Symo Kurka No No Yes
92. taylor breck No Yes No
93. Tanoujin Milestone No No Yes
94. ThePrincess Parisi No Yes Yes
95. topgenosse brouwer (Sleazy Writer) Yes Yes Yes
96. tad peckham Yes No No
97. taylor breck Yes No No
98. timothy yorkshire Yes No No
99. torin golding Yes Yes Yes
100. Ulysse Alexandre No Yes Yes
101. yogeswari padar Yes Yes Yes
102. zeus zetkin Yes Yes Yes

Total: 67 76 67

[Patroklus Murakami]

Guess that means we're into election season then - Michel's first pronouncement of doom and disaster - it's like the first cuckoo that heralds the beginning of Spring!

Could I make a suggestion? Instead of condemning, damning and doing down the CDS at every turn, why don't you focus on the positive aspects of our community? We should celebrate the fact that we've expanded into our third beautiful sim, that we've developed as a community with more events and life in our sims (due to the Events Budget the RA approved) that we've enacted positive electoral and other reforms. But that would mean saying something good about the CDS, and that doesn't really suit your election strategy does it? But it's a shame that you continually denigrate the community's efforts, it just drags us all down.

[michelmanen]

The success of the events have nothing to do with the budget Pat, and everything to do with the fact that we finally have a PIO who put her heart and soul into bringing entertainment, educational and cultural events to the CDS. In light of the moronic financial bill passed by the RA, i'd say we have events again despite the CSDF-led RA, and not because of it.

In any case, your focus on me personally (once again) only shows that you simply cannot argue with the raw data provided above and the conclusions drawn.

And no, PAT, I am not putting down the CDS project. But I am critical of the manner in which you are running it, because I know it could be so much more than it is - and that mediocrity is not a reason for satisfaction, nor stagnation grounds for complacence.

So let me make a counter-suggestion: stay away from personal attacks and run on your record. Of course I have no illusion you will do so because your record over the past six months is so abysmal that it is entirely unsalvagable - except, of course, by means of personal attacks against your favorite bogey-man.

[Patroklus Murakami]

The success of our events is definitely due in large part to the energy and enthusiasm of our PIO; nothing I've said above detracts from that. But... there would be no events without a budget and that was proposed by the CSDF. How is that 'moronic'?

And once again you accuse others of 'personal attacks' when none have been made. My statement was entirely factual - it suits your purpose to run the CDS down and say that it is 'stagnant' etc. because you want to create a climate of fear and step in as the great saviour - it's the tactic of demagogues throughout the ages. Don't get upset just because we point it out, it's nothing personal as I'm sure your attacks on me aren't.

I think that the figures you provide would be in line with the normal rate of comings and goings for Second Life projects; if anything I'd say we're more stable than most. At the start of this term we had just expanded to Colonia Nova (and you made the same points even then); we've only just expanded to our third sim and the setup of that sim is unlikely to lead to a massive expansion in citizen numbers due to geography if nothing else. I expect that we will continue to consolidate and grow during the next term but your unconstructive negative comments aren't going to help us get there. It took us two years to expand from one sim to two and only one year to go from two to three - why can't you join me in celebrating that achievement?

[yogeswari]

yes, it would be nice if we had NO turnover... but people come and go in SL, so as pat said, it's probably normal.

that said, i do wonder if the ongoing negativity, sniping and political machinations have something to do with the turnover. i am a longstanding resident of the CDS and have no intention of leaving, but i'm pretty sick of it all.

yogeswari

[michelmanen]

The success of our events is definitely due in large part to the energy and enthusiasm of our PIO; nothing I've said above detracts from that. But... there would be no events without a budget and that was proposed by the CSDF. How is that 'moronic'?

The RA could have approved 10 times that amount Pat - but without a dynamic and enthusiastic PIO nothing would have been achieved. Instead of appreciating that, the CSDF-led RA passed a finance bill specifically aimed at making the PIO's life more difficult and possibly impeaching her - that's the moronic part! And yes, I am in favor of accountability and transparency - but done in a responsible manner, not used as an excuse to render the CDS bureaucracy even more difficult to understand and comply with than it already is. That's the moronic part I am referring to.

And once again you accuse others of 'personal attacks' when none have been made. My statement was entirely factual - it suits your purpose to run the CDS down and say that it is 'stagnant' etc. because you want to create a climate of fear and step in as the great saviour - it's the tactic of demagogues throughout the ages. Don't get upset just because we point it out, it's nothing personal as I'm sure your attacks on me aren't.

That's bull and you know it, Pat. It is your electoral purposes who are served by having a bogey-man who you portray as a demagogue trying to create a climate of fear so that he may step in as the CDS saviour. "Hey, look! Michel is at it again! Let's all close ranks and make sure he doesn't get to take over!" All you have to do is look at the three citizenship tables above and see what a dismal record we have had over the past year: growth of exactly zero and a core stable citizenship of 37 individuals. I don't think the CDS project is about setting up a community of less than 100 individuals that loses people instead of gaining, is it? And the sims are just the virtual place where the community is built; they are just pixels on a server, nothing else. Without a dynamic, vibrant community they mean nothing. You focus on the pixels if you want; CARE's concern is in the community we develop and the real people behind it.

I think that the figures you provide would be in line with the normal rate of comings and goings for Second Life projects; if anything I'd say we're more stable than most. At the start of this term we had just expanded to Colonia Nova (and you made the same points even then); we've only just expanded to our third sim and the setup of that sim is unlikely to lead to a massive expansion in citizen numbers due to geography if nothing else. I expect that we will continue to consolidate and grow during the next term but your unconstructive negative comments aren't going to help us get there. It took us two years to expand from one sim to two and only one year to go from two to three - why can't you join me in celebrating that achievement?

That's only because you have voted down the Citizenship Commission and the bill to disassociate land ownership from citizenship. Stability for 37 people with another 30-odd coming and going is not what the CDS is all about. When Caledon went from 1 sim to 38 and from 2 citizens to about 600 in less than two years, I can hardly celebrate the fact that it took us 3 years to add two sims and reach the level of 67 citizens. SL's population is increasing geometrically; new continents and hundreds of private sims are added to the grid; yet we need 3 years to add two sims and acutally manage to have a net growth of 0 citizens over a year - and in the process actually lose 35 people who had been CDS citizens during that time! Is this the great acheivement of your administration you wish me to celebrate?

[Patroklus Murakami]

Michel

Our bill on financial responsibility was about making sure that expenditure only took place when the RA had approved it. Are you in favour of financial responsibility or irresponsibility? Surely you don't agree with spending public money without due accountability? Or do you?

I think you're the one who sets up bogey-men and indulges in personal attacks that put people off politics in the CDS. You continually accuse others of the kind of antics you get up to yourself. Your project in the CDS has not been terribly successful so far but your tactics have remained the same during this time - slag off the RA, the SC and the Chancellor, condemn some invented 'oligarchy' and hope enough mud sticks to get people to vote for CARE. But what do you offer as an alternative? In the past two elections it's been a mish mash of constitutional tinkering and totalitarianism but nothing that would actually make a difference to life in the CDS or that would attract new people to us. Thankfully your manifesto has been comprehensively rejected by the voters at every occasion.

Why are you so obsessed with the growth of Caledon? Why do you measure the success of the CDS purely in terms of numbers? If we wanted to just 'go for growth' we could have followed your daft plan to allow any griefer to pitch up in the CDS for a few Linden spacebucks. Or we could have simply added on a dozen sims with no planning restrictions and drawn in 100s more citizens. There's clearly a reason why we haven't - it would be irresponsible and it would fundamentally change the character of the CDS, most people think it would be for the worse.

[Justice Soothsayer]

First, thanks Michel, for providing the data regarding our citizenship rolls over the last year. I also appreciate that you included not just your summary statistics but the underlying data ("53. justice soothsayer Yes Yes Yes"). Your overall summary of the data seems both concise and accurate (CDS "gained about a third of its total population during this period, has lost about a third, and has kept a hard core of about a third") and is an important contribution to the debate of our future.

Unfortunately you coupled the data with shrill and partisan rhetoric in the conclusions you draw from the data. Yogeswari gets it about right; the ongoing negativity and sniping is well past its "sell by" date.

My vote will go to the faction that comes up with a positive and workable plan for improving our growth rate. Growth, openness, and prosperity are all good themes, but their impact is diluted by the inclusion of the negativity of "decline, retrenchment, and stagnation".

And no one can earn my vote by using the word "moronic" or its synonyms, including "daft".

[Salzie Sachertorte]

Thank you Justice -my sentiments as well

My question - are DPU and Simplicity in this election?

Salzie

[michelmanen]

Well the good thing about this is that CSDF and CARE both have clear and diametrically opposite visions of the future of the CDS. The unfortunate part is that the core part of the 37 per cent of the stable CDS citizenship seems to prefer a "more of the same, incremental approach" rather than talking the risk to fully take advantage of the unique opportunities offered by this new medium of communication. This means that, as long as we keep entrance to our community severely restricted by land availability, that we have a high turnover of the 30 odd citizens who come and go on a regular basis and basically support with their land fees the survival of the CDS, and that pretty much the same number of people leave as join us over each year period, you have effectively entrenched an automatic majority favoring your vision of the future of our community. Everything you have done as LRA for the past year, from the destruction of the Justice Bill, to the rejection of a new voting system designed to allow all voters to rank each candidate to the RA and vote directly for the Chancellor, to the refusal to allow the enactment of the Citizenship Bill disconnecting CDS citizenship from land ownership) has been designed to preserve this oligopolistic, in-built majority which upholds your vision of the CDS and hence, your and your supporters' iron grip over it.

So quit accusing me of proposing a totalitarian project when it is more than obvious that you are using your party's RA plurality of votes to stop any changes to our system of governance that would permit a different vision of the CDS than yours to compete with yours on a level playing field. The totalitarian tendencies are on your side, not CARE's.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Michel,

absent any data as to why people leave, one is free to hypothesize whatever cause one wishes to. Perhaps in the future we should ask departing citizens to complete some sort of exit interview notecard to test these hypotheses.

The question of growth is a pricklier one. It's worth noting that the same number of citizens are now supporting 50% more territory. It has already been mentioned that Alpine Meadows was designed in a way that was unlikely to spur population growth. To get growth , we have at least a couple of options. One is to add another, fairly dense sim (like Neufreistadt or the proposed Nea Hora) that would allow many more people to enter the community. A more radical approach would be to significantly redefine citizenship in such a way that land wouldn't be a limiting factor to population growth. For the record, I prefer option 1.

[Salzie Sachertorte]

Nea Hora? What is that? Why arent' all the citizens aware of that? Why isn't our PIO conveying information? too busy planning socialite parties? I think we need a title revision.

[michelmanen]

If you would have bothered to be around a little more Salzie rather than dropping by once in a blue moon and engaging in unwarranted personal attacks of people who actually make an effort to make this community lively, dynamic, and fun to be in, you would know that Nea Hora was Arria's sim proposal which was not selected by the CDS citizens when the theme of Alpine meadow was chosen, but which was retained as a possible future alternative.

[Justice Soothsayer]

Is it possible to be more condescending? Michel, this is hardly a strategy for winning friends and influencing people. You have a very good point about our current lack of population growth, but don't throw it away by ad hominem attacks on those who post on the forums.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Nea Hora? What is that? Why arent' all the citizens aware of that? Why isn't our PIO conveying information? too busy planning socialite parties? I think we need a title revision.

Nea Hora was the other proposal that AM beat out. It was a dense , mediterranean build (think Greek island).