Request to RA to post transcript of Sim Naming Meeting

[Patroklus Murakami]

This is a request to the Representative Assembly. I'm dropping a notecard with this information on it on Claude inworld. In the interests of transparency, I'd like the RA to post the transcript of the closed meeting they held to choose a name for the sim and for the overarching project of which Neualtenburg (now Neufreistadt) and Colonia Nova are a part.

Here's why: the DPU-led RA picked the name "Confederation of Democratic Simulators" from among the choices proposed and voted on by the citizenry. But now the DPU is standing for re-election with the creation of a federal system at the heart of its manifesto. I think we need to see the transcript of that meeting to remove any doubt that the RA acted impartially and, in particular, to prove that it did not choose the CDS moniker because it would be helpful to the ruling party in the coming elections.

I've been bothered by the selection process for some time. When the Naming Procedures Act was proposed I thought we were selecting just that. When I saw that names for the overall project had been suggested which included the words 'Federal' or 'Confederal' I thought they were not descriptive of the Republic we have built but, since it's only a name, I was prepared to let it pass. In addition, we were told not to debate the names publicly because of the possibility of domain squatting. This stifled debate at the time. Now we're left with a [i:3t140zpj]fait accompli[/i:3t140zpj] and the ruling party wants to take us down the federal road. This raises doubts in my mind and concerns about the process. Publishing the transcript, in the interests of transparency, would help to ease my doubts.

[Claude Desmoulins]

A few points.

1) Per the closed meeting provision of the RA meeting procedures, no transcript was kept,

2) The meeting to choose the new name took place on June 17. I had sent out a draft DPU platform, with language based on my forum post of June 8, to the faction the previous day; but it had not been approved by the membership. It is thus reasonable to say the confederation idea was mine rather than the DPU's as of the date of the name selection meeting.

3) Of the five names presented to the RA based on citizen votes, four included federal, federation or confederation as an element. The only one which didn't was "Democratic Republic of Neualtenburg", the selection of which would have caused its own uproar, to put it mildly.

I must question whether my distinguished colleague from the CSDF is trying to put the RA in a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" bind after the fact. I would note two other things:

1) Had the name choices been based solely on the citizen vote, we would have ended up with "Virtual Democratic Confederation", a name which, based on his post, ought to have been just as troubling to Patroklus.

2) We as a community haven't decided the exact nature of the CDS. Diderot's post, for example, presents an alternative understanding of what it might be. Thus suggesting that a given name is intended as a tacit endorsement of a particular model seems to me to go too far.

[Patroklus Murakami]

I'm afraid we're no nearer to a conclusion Claude and your post raises more questions for me than it answers.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":29r2rjdj]1) Per the closed meeting provision of the RA meeting procedures, no transcript was kept, [/quote:29r2rjdj]

The Naming Procedures Act says that the RA was to meet in closed session, it does [b:29r2rjdj]not[/b:29r2rjdj] say that no transcript should have been kept! There [b:29r2rjdj]is[/b:29r2rjdj] a difference. If you had kept a transcript you would be able to publish it and put any doubts at rest.

This is the fundamental problem with secret meetings, especially ones that take place at times that are difficult for opposition figures and other interested citizens to attend. The RA needs to seriously consider its rules and procedures so that, for example, a transcript of closed sessions is always taken even if it is not published immediately.

[quote:29r2rjdj]2) The meeting to choose the new name took place on June 17. I had sent out a draft DPU platform, with language based on my forum post of June 8, to the faction the previous day; but it had not been approved by the membership. It is thus reasonable to say the confederation idea was mine rather than the DPU's as of the date of the name selection meeting.[/quote:29r2rjdj]

Thanks for making the sequence of events clear.

[quote:29r2rjdj]3) Of the five names presented to the RA based on citizen votes, four included federal, federation or confederation as an element. The only one which didn't was "Democratic Republic of Neualtenburg", the selection of which would have caused its own uproar, to put it mildly. [/quote:29r2rjdj]

Indeed, but that's not the point I'm making.

[quote:29r2rjdj]I must question whether my distinguished colleague from the CSDF is trying to put the RA in a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" bind after the fact. [/quote:29r2rjdj]

Well, if you find yourself in a bind I have to say it's only because you put yourself there (by not keeping a record of the meeting). I'm just asking for some transparency in government decision-making. My original request was perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

[quote:29r2rjdj]I would note two other things:

1) Had the name choices been based solely on the citizen vote, we would have ended up with "Virtual Democratic Confederation", a name which, based on his post, ought to have been just as troubling to Patroklus.[/quote:29r2rjdj]

Again, you're completely missing the point of my post. As I explained to you inworld the choice of the name 'Confederation' does not bother me... so long as it is just the label we apply to the overall project of which Neufreistadt and Colonia Nova and future sims are a part. What bothers me is using this choice of name to generate a bandwagon in favour of a particular form of government. Especially when you had the power to choose the name in the first place and then your party made it the main plank of its election campaign.

[quote:29r2rjdj]2) We as a community haven't decided the exact nature of the CDS. Diderot's post, for example, presents an alternative understanding of what it might be. Thus suggesting that a given name is intended as a tacit endorsement of a particular model seems to me to go too far.[/quote:29r2rjdj]

Here we agree, the use of a particular name should not represent endorsement of a particular model. We can't draw conclusions from the citizens' choices on this because they were asked to choose a name and a name only.

------------------------
But we're still no nearer a solution to the problem I originally posted! You have no transcript to show that, in choosing the name, you were not swayed by the potential use of a particular name in the subsequent election campaign. Though your post makes a number of points, I can only note that you haven't addresed this one.

[Brian Livingston]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2d1yuvva]I'm afraid we're no nearer to a conclusion Claude and your post raises more questions for me than it answers.

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2d1yuvva]1) Per the closed meeting provision of the RA meeting procedures, no transcript was kept, [/quote:2d1yuvva]

The Naming Procedures Act says that the RA was to meet in closed session, it does [b:2d1yuvva]not[/b:2d1yuvva] say that no transcript should have been kept! There [b:2d1yuvva]is[/b:2d1yuvva] a difference. If you had kept a transcript you would be able to publish it and put any doubts at rest.

This is the fundamental problem with secret meetings, especially ones that take place at times that are difficult for opposition figures and other interested citizens to attend. The RA needs to seriously consider its rules and procedures so that, for example, a transcript of closed sessions is always taken even if it is not published immediately.
[/quote:2d1yuvva]

This was one of my initial concerns when the changes to the closed meetings were mentioned a few months back. I believe that every meeting should have a transcript taken, even if it is not immediately released. What harm would have come from holding the transcript and releasing it after the formal announcement of the new name? At that point, there would be no worries about domain-squating or whatnot.