CDS budget 9th term: steady state expenses

[Sonja Strom]

Ranma, I always find it difficult to be able to address all of the points you make in a post. However, I feel I can respond to a couple of them in your last post.

Up to 2007, Representative Assembly meetings were primarily for RA members and basically only included commentary from citizens upon request of the RA. In early 2007, the 8th RA (when I was there as a DPU Representative) changed this. Now any citizen may ask to speak on any topic the RA is considering, and then when their turn comes is allowed to do so. At the end of every RA session there is also an "Open Discussion" time, when citizens may bring up any topic they like. Often there is a limit to how long this Open Discussion time can go, but if a topic is raised that others would like to continue talking about then it can be placed on the agenda for the next RA meeting.

In addition, I believe any citizen can request that the Leader of the Representative Assembly place a topic of discussion on the RA's agenda. It is, however, in the power of the LRA to decide where in the agenda this topic would be placed.

Also in addition, any citizen may contact any RA member to talk with them about an issue, and ask this RA member to bring it up in the next meeting. Among all the members of the RA, I would say it is very likely one of them would do it.

Yet in addition, any citizen may contact members of a faction and/or join a faction, and ask that faction Representatives bring a topic to an RA meeting.

Still yet in addition, we have this CDS Forum, which allows us to communicate with each other and hold discussions outside of any particular meeting time.

Although there are all of these options for bringing one's ideas to the RA, it can be a lot of work and even then they might not be acted on. When I was in the RA there was only one issue I felt really strongly about (allowing Government Referendums and beginning work toward allowance of Citizen Initiatives), and still by the end of the term not any faction outside of the DPU supported it in any way.

I am not able to speak for Rose, but I cannot believe she was saying she wanted you to not participate or express yourself freely. As for me, I was only suggesting that you and Symo try to adopt a more understanding approach in your responses to each other, in order create a more enjoyable discussion for both of you and for everybody who has been following what you are saying.

[symokurka]

Sonja said

will try to calm this conversation down a bit

Yes Sonja, you are right, I apologize with you.

[Sonja Strom]

Thank you Symo!!

Uuops, in my post above I should have said 2008, not 2007! It seems like longer ago than just earlier this year...

Well, it is now clear I am not always perfect myself.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Sonja

Having attended RA meeting from 2005/6 onwards I'd have to say my recollection is different from yours

Prior to the rule change in 2007, RA meetings held fairly free discussion which non-RA members frequently spoke on. If you look back at the transcripts you will see a lot of citizen input, not just at the request of the RA. The 8th RA decided to institute more rules to govern proceedings and one of these was to give priority to RA members in discussion. Ordinary citizens can still participate but have to notify the LRA of the items they wish to speak on. This has worked reasonably well in operation though, regardless of which rules you try to use, it depends on the goodwill and behaviour of RA members and citizens attending to make the meetings successful.

[Sonja Strom]

Thank you Patroklus for the clarification.

How I was describing the structure of the RA before 2008 was my understanding, not my recollection. Although I attended a couple of meetings as a citizen before then, I did not attend them regularly until I was elected to the RA in January, 2008.

In the past I have tried to read through some of the earlier transcripts, but I don't find them very attention-grabbing. If I want to become a real expert in the development of the RA I will do that to follow the dynamic, but for now I will take your word for it.

My memory from the time I started on the RA is, some citizens and RA members said they felt they were not able to talk about what they wanted, mostly because the LRA was not giving them any opportunity to do so. My understanding at that time was, the position of LRA was able to guide and control the topics of conversation and who could speak about them.

In hindsight and knowing more about the RA now, it seems very possible those complaints were politically motivated. At that time there were also disruptive comments and side conversations making the flow of the main conversation difficult to follow, which to some extent continued even after a more formal structure was put into place. In addition I received a barrage of IMs in those meetings from those same people, which influenced my experience of the conversations but are not included in the transcripts.

If the way you describe the RA before 2008 is true, then the RA has been even more open to citizen input than I described - and that is good to know!

[Ranma Tardis]

Not everything is "politically motivated" at least in sense of your message. However not everyone has the same vision of government. My view of a Second Life government is a more simplistic one and a very hard to change Constitution which would grant the government its powers by the direction and consent of its citizens. If an action is not granted by the constitution it would require a referendum by the citizens. It is a very "American" point of view. Yes it has been pointed out in the past and on this forum some of my thinking is "too American" but what can you expect from one?
The CDS uses an "European" model which is the people get their rights granted by the state. The only difference between a new law and a constitutional change is the number of votes for the item. The CDS is an "instant" form of government. Items can be proposed and passed in the same session with no time for review and comment. Reading last summers transcripts I noticed some of the flaws of our "instant" form government. Not enough votes for an impeachment? Lets call it a "removal" and the number decreases. Yes this action was undone but the "damage" was already done.
It was a mistake for me to have returned. My vision is in contrast to the government of the CDS. I do not have a "Barney" view in which all need to "get along" and with the program. For the record I have not condemn the European model but have a hard time accepting and endorsing such. I have a "passion" for my views and will not change them to please the majority or minority. Perhaps it is time for me to accept this and also make a correction to my mistake.

[Sonja Strom]

Ranma, I also do not believe everything is politically motivated - only in the one case of those complaints I think they could have been. Partly why I said in hindsight I thought so is because at that time I did not think so.

I am not sure exactly what to think about your political model. I also believe Referendum Questions are good for the government to put on the ballot so the citizens can use their own voice, especially for major changes to the community. Referenda are not specifically American. At least in Switzerland they are used far more than in the United States, and I think in the US there are no national Referenda at all. If you are interested in discussing this further, I suggest we move this conversation to this thread, which was started by Beathan out of our conversations in the RA: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1667

In addition, I would not say the CDS is any sort of a true model of European democracy. Far more accurate, I think, is Jamie's description of it being a Häagen-Dazs® system! Hahahaa!!

Why the current RA perpetuates the HaagenDasz system evades me. It seems to embrace the worst of parliamentary complexity, in its love of minority parties and thwarting of any majority.

I can see how some of the decisions made by the RA last summer could now be interpreted as mistakes. For one thing, sometimes at a particular moment things look different than they do six months later. It does seem important to me that if we like the CDS we at least try to make it a better place from what it is now, and hopefully enjoy it. If mistakes have been made, or are continually being made, hopefully we can learn from this as a community and make better choices from here. Whether or not you want to be a part of doing this is, of course, a decision only you can make for yourself. I know in the past a lot of people have left, including the founders - the first two forums are not even included here, and this forum shows wave after wave of people who have come and gone. During my time here a few people I respected a lot have chosen to leave and have not come back. A couple of times I also have come near to leaving, and I can't say for sure I will still be in the CDS a year from now.

I am not sure what a "Barney" view in which we all need to "get along" and with the program is, but I don't think it is a requirement for being a CDS citizen. I certainly do not always agree with everybody (as anyone in the RA will tell you, and as you can see from a lot of posts I have made in this Forum). However, I do try to be kind toward everyone, and I do try to listen to their perspective and understand it as clearly as I am able. As the American Jewish Rabbi and author Joshua Liebman wrote, "Tolerance is the positive and cordial effort to understand another's beliefs, practices, and habits without necessarily sharing or accepting them." This is not to say you need to be like me - I am simply giving you my perspective.