Collective Property versus Un-Gated Community

[Bromo Ivory]

However, the important point is that both creative assets and a cash account are, if we expand rapidly, a free resource that can be used by any group with a plan that can recruit from outside to fill plots. This is the "tragedy of the commons". And it is not limited to current constituencies.

I do believe the tragedy of the commons was related to overgrazing communally owned lands - meaning there was no one to maintain jointly owned property and it deteriorated. Where I get lost is me not understanding what about our SL builds require ongoing maintenance that is not done in the "tragedy of the commons" analogy. Perhaps you are talking about "burnout?" If so, why not call it "burnout?"

Also, we do Lease plots to people, and they are required to pay Tier and the purcahse price to get access to the land. I don't understand where the "free" part comes in since the economics pay the tier for common land (roads, etc.) which only require that tier be maintained to Linden Labs to be maintained. To me, this is a bit like living in an apartment complex or a condominium/co-op and calling the fact that the hallway and roof is maintained by the landlord "tragedy of the commons."

When I was in California some local Libertarian groups would use this as a rally cry to lobby to take functions from the government and gift them to private enterprise even when there was no evidence of deterioration.

I don't mind that a rapidly growing CDS will attract a large mix of people. I don't fret that one day I might be in a minority of opinion even smaller than one today ... this is about democracy and trying to keep yourself true to your values and relevant to the population.

I have now seen at least three waves of groups come to the CDS with the idea of building their new Jerusalem here. The better examples are the ones who tried to get the existing citizens on board, not rejecting all those who might have reservations with an eye towards replacing them with new supporters. Unfortunatly our system is wide open to a strategy of replacement rather than working with existing citizens to convince them that the new design is a better idea. A new group can always shove the current citizens off the island, and so on.

Can they? This would require eminent domain ...

A more likely scenario is that the reality of working in a democracy (Pat posted about the great deal of the time and effort required to do this) causing burnout and people working on other projects that they feel a bit more rewarding. Another common thing is when RL issues (school, career, family and so on) take precedence and force people to cut way down their involvement (case in point ... me) - and given the amount of thankless time and effort ...

I don't think there is a single instance of someone being legally forced to leave CDS. I do think we do tend to burn people out, though, something we should try to prevent.

The ironic thing is, if someone does bring their grand design in the CDS, that project too is open to the next incoming group, and this is not conducive to stability. I take this to be a systemic more than a moral problem. We cannot depend on every group in SL to respect what others have built here. If Nu/CARE completes its revolution, it will be in the same boat with the next wave. And why close the door just then?

nuCARE hasn't done any sort of "revolution" - in the last election nuCARE were 3rd of 4 parties. They got 2 seats of 7. They did not (nor do they now) have the LRA and by extension control the agenda, and I cannot think of being allowed by the other parties to pass any of their larger reforms from last term - and this term there were no big changes proposed (the party managed to moderate itself). Certainly nothing is possible unilaterally. While I think nuCARE would love to have a freer hand, fact is, they don't have it, even with CSDF's resignation they are 2 of 5 instead of 2 of 7. until there is a by election, Constitutional amendments require unanimous support of RA members currently working. LRA is being handled by the CDS equivalent of John Adams (Beathan), and has rules in place where no one person will be able to control the agenda (this was a SP reform, I will remind you, not nuCARE, though they did support it. Ironically, this, if upheld in the terms, will prevent any faction from being able to railroad things - so it will be harder to "game" the system to have only 1 factions items on the agenda and no one else's).

[Jon Seattle]

I do believe the tragedy of the commons was related to overgrazing communally owned lands - meaning there was no one to maintain jointly owned property and it deteriorated. Where I get lost is me not understanding what about our SL builds require ongoing maintenance that is not done in the "tragedy of the commons" analogy. Perhaps you are talking about "burnout?" If so, why not call it "burnout?"

Tragady of the commons refers to any common resource that can be used at a lower cost than the value received. The way it works is that when the value is larger than the cost, it always will make economic "rational" sense to exploit that resource to its limit.

Yes, its true that the resource does come at a cost, but that cost is far far less than the value in this case. Tier is a very very small payment in relation to the value of control of an expensive asset. And in our current political system one can achieve control with a fairly small minority.

I don't mind that a rapidly growing CDS will attract a large mix of people. I don't fret that one day I might be in a minority of opinion even smaller than one today ... this is about democracy and trying to keep yourself true to your values and relevant to the population.

I don't mind either IF it does have a mix of people. But it is all too easy to arrange for it not to be a mix of people. Refer to the old debate about "micro-plots" for an example.

I have now seen at least three waves of groups come to the CDS with the idea of building their new Jerusalem here. The better examples are the ones who tried to get the existing citizens on board, not rejecting all those who might have reservations with an eye towards replacing them with new supporters. Unfortunatly our system is wide open to a strategy of replacement rather than working with existing citizens to convince them that the new design is a better idea. A new group can always shove the current citizens off the island, and so on.

Can they? This would require eminent domain ...

Not at all. All it requires is a concerted "whisper" campaign and private and public verbal attacks. People will be discouraged from speaking out, will tend not to join groups and community projects, and eventually they will start to leave. I know of three such private attacks just in the last week. But unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do within the CDS to protect themselves against such harassment.

[Bromo Ivory]

I do believe the tragedy of the commons was related to overgrazing communally owned lands - meaning there was no one to maintain jointly owned property and it deteriorated. Where I get lost is me not understanding what about our SL builds require ongoing maintenance that is not done in the "tragedy of the commons" analogy. Perhaps you are talking about "burnout?" If so, why not call it "burnout?"

Tragady of the commons refers to any common resource that can be used at a lower cost than the value received. The way it works is that when the value is larger than the cost, it always will make economic "rational" sense to exploit that resource to its limit.

Yes, its true that the resource does come at a cost, but that cost is far far less than the value in this case. Tier is a very very small payment in relation to the value of control of an expensive asset. And in our current political system one can achieve control with a fairly small minority.

I do understand what you are trying to say. But the Tragety in the ToTC (acronym) was that the land was literally rendered useless through overuse as a free resource. It is oftentimes in California (Not so much in New York) used as an excuse to gift public services to the private sector who can charge more for the same service. Oh and taxes generally haven't gone down.

Now, to your point: "The build is worth far more than the value received" ... I would like to see a hard core economic argument on this one. I do beleive you are right, but it may be that the economic value is *impossible* to extract and wi8ll remain intangible.

For instance, some interesting questions before this degerates into a lament that artists are not paid what they are worth (they aren't in RL, my wife was one that struggled for years and never was even able to break even!):

1. How do real estate prices in CDS compare to, say the mainland, Caledon and other islands.
2. The Vacancy Rate and the Absorbtion Rate (% of land up for sale at any given time, and how long they have to remain on the market in order to sell)
3. The Abdandonment rate (% of properties that fail to pay Tier)
4. Structures on the land ... do they add or detract?
5. Covenant vs non covenant ... do covenants add value? Price of land under covenant vs those not under covenant?
6. Other SIMs (such as RP ones) that have great builds ... have they been able to charge for the value of their build to their residents? (I know of 2 that are only interested in breaking even and both were "community build" efforts)

I think we ought to address these issues before we declare that the land is horribly undervalued ... and if people are extracting a ton of value in essence "for free." I feel fortunate and was attracted to the build and public buildings ... this attracted me to CDS, so I am happy to enjoy them. Whever I hear talk about ToTC and "Artists not being paid" I check to make sure my wallet is still in its place, because in SL or RL it is a rally cry for higher fees.

I don't mind that a rapidly growing CDS will attract a large mix of people. I don't fret that one day I might be in a minority of opinion even smaller than one today ... this is about democracy and trying to keep yourself true to your values and relevant to the population.

I don't mind either IF it does have a mix of people. But it is all too easy to arrange for it not to be a mix of people. Refer to the old debate about "micro-plots" for an example.

But where you and I differ, is that I do not want to "test" people to see if they are worthy to join CDS - especially not a political test. If we expand rapidly enough, it will be difficult for mini land barons to springup, but at $1600-1800 a pop, you can own your own island - and now for $400 you can have a SIM with 3750 prims!

Can they? This would require eminent domain ...

Not at all. All it requires is a concerted "whisper" campaign and private and public verbal attacks. People will be discouraged from speaking out, will tend not to join groups and community projects, and eventually they will start to leave. I know of three such private attacks just in the last week. But unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do within the CDS to protect themselves against such harassment.

Jon ... you are saying that people get sick of all the rumors in our mean little small town, and people then prefer the big city. Fair enough, but no one has actually been forced to leave. I have been attacked, and I am still here. Well my land is for sale, but it has NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING to do with people talking behind my back about me.

So ... if people gossip then this is forcing you to leave?

[Jon Seattle]

I do understand what you are trying to say. But the Tragety in the ToTC (acronym) was that the land was literally rendered useless through overuse as a free resource. It is oftentimes in California (Not so much in New York) used as an excuse to gift public services to the private sector who can charge more for the same service. Oh and taxes generally haven't gone down.

No Bromo, ToC applies to any common resource that can be depilated though use -- it does not have to apply to land at all. And the assets are very tangible in this case.

I think we ought to address these issues before we declare that the land is horribly undervalued ... and if people are extracting a ton of value in essence "for free." I feel fortunate and was attracted to the build and public buildings ... this attracted me to CDS, so I am happy to enjoy them. Whever I hear talk about ToTC and "Artists not being paid" I check to make sure my wallet is still in its place, because in SL or RL it is a rally cry for higher fees.

We are talking about control of assets rather than how much one pays for land. Its a matter of capital rather than cash flow. You insist on not focusing on this issue, but it is the core of the matter.

But where you and I differ, is that I do not want to "test" people to see if they are worthy to join CDS - especially not a political test. If we expand rapidly enough, it will be difficult for mini land barons to springup, but at $1600-1800 a pop, you can own your own island - and now for $400 you can have a SIM with 3750 prims!

Once again you jump to distortion and untruths to support your argument. I have never proposed a test of any kind. A better approach is what I propose elsewhere in the forum. A town meeting organization with some qualification (I recommend a period in residence) before becoming a full resident.

Can they? This would require eminent domain ...

Not at all. All it requires is a concerted "whisper" campaign and private and public verbal attacks. People will be discouraged from speaking out, will tend not to join groups and community projects, and eventually they will start to leave. I know of three such private attacks just in the last week. But unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do within the CDS to protect themselves against such harassment.

Jon ... you are saying that people get sick of all the rumors in our mean little small town, and people then prefer the big city. Fair enough, but no one has actually been forced to leave

There is a difference between a few rumors and an orchestrated campaign of lies and distortion directed at many of the members of a specific group. You may say these actions just make it unpleasant for the members of that group, but it is effective, where the investment is not as great as the real world, in discouraging political speech, getting people to resign from the RA, and prompting people to move out of town. This is illegitimate and immoral politics, and its a tactic that you have had a hand in.

[Bromo Ivory]

[...] ToC applies to any common resource that can be depilated though use -- it does not have to apply to land at all. And the assets are very tangible in this case.

We are talking about control of assets rather than how much one pays for land. Its a matter of capital rather than cash flow. You insist on not focusing on this issue, but it is the core of the matter.

Depleted? You mean the build or the cash in the reserves? If so ... I will agree the cash in the reserves is a tangible asset, though question if it is freely accessible to all as the commons were to be depleted... If it is the "value" of the build that was done - we need to value it before we say it is not paid for.

However, given the way Linden Labs structures their billing and service agreements, the "owner of record" has control over the islands and ultimate responsibility.

Not at all. All it requires is a concerted "whisper" campaign and private and public verbal attacks.

There is a huge difference between that and legality. Neither are nice, but in an open society, we are all subject to this. One can mute the offenders and ignore them just as in RL.

[...] This is illegitimate and immoral politics, and its a tactic that you have had a hand in.

Jon - I have not. I do not operate that way. I take high levels of insult at this remark and demand an apology. (Though I am doubtful you would do this)

(I am selling my land in AM. I suppose I could "blame" you and your pattern of immoral insult and attacks on this, but that would not being taking responsibility for one's actions as I believe everyone should do)

[Jon Seattle]

Not at all. All it requires is a concerted "whisper" campaign and private and public verbal attacks.

There is a huge difference between that and legality. Neither are nice, but in an open society, we are all subject to this. One can mute the offenders and ignore them just as in RL.

Oh, it is fully legal, especially since it is political speech. But one cannot mute a member of the RA or the head of a faction and function in the CDS, so again it deprives people of their basic rights.

[...] This is illegitimate and immoral politics, and its a tactic that you have had a hand in.

Jon - I have not. I do not operate that way. I take high levels of insult at this remark and demand an apology. (Though I am doubtful you would do this)

You are head of a party who's leaders have, via IM, contacted a number of members of the CSDF in the past week (other than myself and Pat by the way) to insult and yell at them. I personally have seen you support similar behavior in public during and after RA meetings. I have not seen you object to any of this, not even speaking against it even once. If you want to support your party's members throwing insults against Pat and myself, fine, but your faction should stop harassing the other CSDF members.

[Flyingroc Chung]

However, the important point is that both creative assets and a cash account are, if we expand rapidly, a free resource that can be used by any group with a plan that can recruit from outside to fill plots. This is the "tragedy of the commons". And it is not limited to current constituencies.

How is our cash account a free resource?

[Danton Sideways]

Hey everybody -

I see this thread I started is rolling right along without its initiator. And me with no time to catch up on it, and a three-day RL voyage tomorrow morning. I'll have to try to tag on some after-thoughts when I get back...

- Danton

[Jamie Palisades]

Overlooking various interpersonal disagreements and attacks here, I feel as Danton does that I've lost track of the thread. At some point. can anyone offer a view on whether there are some practical "to-dos" for CDS that emerge from the interesting substantive views being debated here?