White Paper for the Guild

[Salzie Sachertorte]

Salzie --

You concerns are founded.

I will continue to try to have strategic planning discussions both at the RA sessions and out of session. I am also trying to re-engage the Guild in these discussions. You are correct, strategic planning is s governmental function.

However, it is rather disingenuous to simultaneously assert that strategic planning is a governmental function and the criticise the RA for passing a sim plan that some citizens oppose. The RA passed a sim plan in accord with our strategic plan -- which calls for speedy residential expansion, to allow us to continue to welcome new citizens into our community, followed by more careful commercial expansion based on the commerce committees findings, followed by a resumption of the discussion about thematic expansion. Because we are out of lots for sale -- and need lots now -- we don't have the luxury of the kind of long and careful process some citizens want. That said, it is not true that the fourth sim is universally opposed -- and, if it is built up to our past standards (as it can be -- with a little imagination and "clustering"), I don't think that it will be opposed in fact.

Beathan

Beathan -

You keep insisting that the RA passed a sim plan which represents the interests of the people. Given the current situation in the RA - I don't think you can honestly make that statement. I understand your viewpoint as to the need for rapid growth within the CDS, though I do not concur with that viewpoint. However, it seems as though my viewpoint, and that of others, is given no consideration in the current RA. I could be wrong, but it is my impression that the current RA is voting on their personal platforms and not that of their factions nor the citizenry in general.

That is why I am rather insistent on strategic planning, so that the will of the people can be seen, without the filter of political factions. Strategic planning will actually help the factions by allowing them to see how the citizenry in general views the CDS and to allow engagement in consensus building, so that everyone's opinion can be heard on what they believe the CDS should be.

[Beathan]

Salzie --

I do believe that the RA is voting in the interests of the CDS, and not based on pesonal agendas. Frankly, I don't see how expansion into a fourth sim furthers any RA member's personal agenda. Rather, the expansion furthers the faction platforms -- all of which called for expansion.

Further, the details of the sim are well in line with the specific commitments of the SP. We called for not merely an expansion of territory, but also an expansion of our citizenry. Right now we are at a choke point in population expansion because we have no available land. That is a situation that all faction's oppose and that all faction's want to remedy as soon as possible.

I think that strategic planning, if done well, can be very valuable. If done poorly, however, the plan can smother progress and healthy growth. We need to avoid that.

However, in the short-term, we do not even have the luxury of time to engage in additional planning before expansion. For that reason, we passed a fourth sim that was in accordance with our current strategic plan and with our existing themes. I don't see this as a departure from the expressed will of the citizenry as a whol or as a departure from any platforms. In fact, I see the fourth sim as a fulfillment of both.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

I chaired the RA meeting where the new sim plan was approved. My impression was that the 50-lot CN expansion was rammed through the RA by a group who had made up their minds before the meeting and would brook no opposition or questioning. I put forward a proposal to have a range of plot sizes so that we could have a diverse set of choices for new and existing citizens when we expand to our 4th sim. I suggested that we might have a range of plot sizes, some very affordable plots the size of the smaller lots in Neufreistadt to improve accessibility and some larger ones too to cater for different needs. I might as well have proposed 'Star Trek' as the theme for sim 4! The idea was ridiculed by ThePrincess and shouted down before it could be seriously considered.

The supporters of the 50-lot expansion seem to be very ideologically committed to this idea. I can't quite grasp why, it's almost like a religious belief; you can't question it or you're labelled a heretic! What is all the rush about? So, we don't have any lots left for sale - big deal. It's a good thing that we don't have a surplus of available land and no takers, isn't it? All the factions contesting the last election said they were in favour of expansion. I drafted the 'In-theme Expansion Act' presented by the CSDF to the RA to streamline the process. But I don't really understand the indecent rush to make this next expansion a reality. We do have the luxury of time to engage in additional planning. We have all the time in the world!

My personal opinion is that, now that the RA has taken the decision to expand in this way, I think we have to pull behind it even if we're not 100% happy with the plan. I don't agree with plans for referenda to 'bless' the plan the RA has approved. Nor do I think we should put pressure on the RA to change its mind. They made a decision, let's get on with it now. But let's not accuse the Guild of 'stalling', for example, because they had questions about what the RA really, really want. And let's not act as if failure to get this 4th sim online - today, not tomorrow, make that yesterday! - is some kind of disaster. No one's going to die if this takes a while to get right now, are they?

[Beathan]

Pat --

We have stated our reasons for the number of lots we chose -- we want to have enough lots available that we maintain an inventory of available lots into the future so interested people can join our community without waiting (as in SL people rarely have the patience to wait). Further, I really don't see why a 50-lot proposal has caused such uproar. CN has 40 different owners right now. A sim supports 128 512 lots. A sim with 50 lots is not the hobo-camp people seem to think it is.

You proposed an alternative to the 50-lot proposal. I also proposed an alternative. Both of our alternatives did not pass after they were debated. It is unfortunate that you are personally affronted when you lose a debate in the RA, but that hardly amounts to a ground on which can can properly and righteously take umbrage.

That said, I applaud your call to get the fourth sim rolling. However, I personally feel that it is more critical to bring this online than you seem to. I do consider it a disaster to have a day pass in which the CDS does not have room for new citizens. On the other hand, I recognize and share the concern about aesthetics -- a rush job is poor job, and we need to maintain the quality of our sims. My concern is that I want to see all our time used to advance the cause -- with no time spent on needless reasking of questions that have already been answered or on side-show discussions about branding and logos.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

... it seems as though my viewpoint, and that of others, is given no consideration in the current RA. I could be wrong, but it is my impression that the current RA is voting on their personal platforms and not that of their factions nor the citizenry in general.

Salzie, I am very disappointed that you feel the entire RA is not considering anyone's point of view other than their own. Please have a look at this post that I made about the 4th sim on Friday: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 722#p10606

I will freely admit that I am not perfect and sometimes I make mistakes, but I am trying to be a true representative for the community - not only for the DPU, and certainly not only for myself. That this would go completely unnoticed is what is disappointing to me.

[bjerkeleerie]

strategic planning is done by the military and is done in secret, community planning is done by the community, and even engages the "lowly citizen"

[Salzie Sachertorte]

strategic planning is done by the military and is done in secret, community planning is done by the community, and even engages the "lowly citizen"

In US government, it is called visioning or strategic planning and is done via a public process - but we are arguing semantics, you can call it whatever you want - it needs to be done within the CDS.