Maybe obeying laws is a good idea :D

[Jamie Palisades]

See Claude's post to the (can't reply there) SC forum:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2383

*Delighted* to hear that someone is finally reading through that document for sensibility. Well done all! I agree that an injunction that laws ought to be followed is good :D

His second suggestion is that the penalty for not following them should be made explicit. Agreed also, but this might take a bit more work than he described. That is, what penalties CAN the CS levy?
- Are fines permitted? (no)
- How much of a law violation is the minimum amount that can warrant taking away citizenship? (dunno, but hope it's a reasonably high hurdle)
- Do we understand the effects of our bar on property confiscation? (maybe not, yet)
- etc.

His last suggestion, which is that the SC (or its otaku geek sci-fi nickname the 'scientific branch') be given explicit exclusive initial jurisdiction, might make sense, but only after there is a rudimentary reliable code of procedure and conflict of interest in place. I doubt many sane, careful persons or businesses voluntarily would submit and commit substantial assets to a plenipotentiary panel without those simple protections :)
Let's do a litle better than the Lindens when it comes to locally predictable enforcement.

Also we might want to include statements about preliminary nonbinding mediation being welcome, and how this all interfaces with "external" forces e.g., the Linden Labs ToS and RL court activity.

Regards Jamie

[Aliasi Stonebender]

I always figured "to live here you need to abide by these laws" was an implicit thing. Otherwise, we're caught in a loop of laws that say you need to obey the law that says you need to obey the law....

[Sonja Strom]

I think the main issue here is, is there a way our community could ostracize a citizen who would repeatedly choose to ignore or undermine the Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracize

I have suggested this as a topic of discussion for the Representative Assembly, here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2386

[Sudane Erato]

I think the main issue here is, is there a way our community could ostracize a citizen who would repeatedly choose to ignore or undermine the Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracize

I have suggested this as a topic of discussion for the Representative Assembly, here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2386

Yes! I have always felt that the ancient Greek practice of ostracism would have a greatly stabilizing effect on the CDS democracy. Once a year the populace could simply vote to expel (for 10 years) its most obstreperous citizen. This would bring a great calmness to our community!

Think of the implications!

Note that they did incorporate a provision for recall.

The only real downside to this is that since their property is not confiscated, the community loses the tier revenues .

Sudane..................

[Jamie Palisades]

Interesting thought. Lots of opportunities for abuse, though. Some sort of supermajority would seem needed, at a minimum. An ostracized citizen still could argue to the SC that their ban is illegal, though (a UDHR violation for example). So it would really come down to the Hari Seldons in our "Scientific Branch." We got those conflict of interest rules written yet? Regards JP

[Sonja Strom]

How important is it to us that our citizens follow the laws of the Constitution? If someone does not, is there a way we can encourage them to do so outside of asking nicely?

For me a one-time occurrence does not seem very important, because it could be the person did not know about the law, or forgot about it, or just made a mistake, or it was the result of a misunderstanding. For me when this becomes important is when somebody is repeatedly ignoring the Constitution, which would put them into a category of being "unfriendly to the principles of the CDS."

Perhaps a ten-year ostracism would be unduly hard on our community, which is itself not yet even five years old. However, I have found a similar provision in the Constitution already:
In NL 4-24, Defense of the Republic Act, it says "The Scientific Council are empowered to deny citizenship to a non-citizen if they have cause to believe that the non-citizen will not abide by the Constitution, founding documents and laws of the City." So, Jamie, it looks like the SC is already the keeper of this key. It then also says "Bars to citizenship must be time-limited and can be overturned by a 2/3 majority vote in the Representative Assembly."

I wonder how the SC would really know if it wanted to keep a non-citizen from becoming a citizen Perhaps this existing law could be altered and updated in some form to include existing citizens who are clearly and repeatedly ignoring the laws of the community.

I did not know we had a ban on property confiscation until reading Jamie's post at the beginning of this thread. As a result, I looked through the legal codes at http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=codeoflaws trying to find it. The only direct reference to confiscation of property I found was:
In NL 9-2, Land Sales Reclamation Act § 5 it says "One calendar month after the due date, if the landowner has continued to fail to pay the full amount then overdue to CDS, then CDS shall send another notice to the landowner warning of imminent reclaimation (loss of the land). Fourteen days after that 1-month notice is sent, the CDS Executive Branch shall re-take ownership of the land, and the owner shall be removed from 'provisional citizen' status. The CDS Executive Branch may then dispose of the land by re-sale or otherwise in such manner as is consistent with our laws, and the landowner will lose any further interest in the parcel. All objects on the parcel at the time of reclaimation shall be returned, and a notice of the reclaimation sent to the landowner."

Is the ban on property confiscation in contradiction to this law, superseding it, or placing it on hold for a defined period of time? Or did Jamie, in his use of the word "property," mean the person's objects on the parcel?

I know, it might seem shameful for a member of the Representative Assembly to not be aware of all the laws herself, but some of you might actually be glad to hear me admit I find it hard to know everything. Please see my second paragraph above.

[Desmond Shang]

I tried really, really hard once to be brought to justice by the CDS.

But they kept granting me immunity!

[Rose Springvale]

actually, SOME of our covenants anticipate obeying laws... From the Colonia Nova covenants...though of course the web reference is mostly empty. (working on it!):

By purchasing this parcel of land, the you, the owner, understand and agree that you become a voting citizen of the community of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS).

As a member you agree to abide by the rules and laws of the community as displayed on the CDS website, http://neufreistadt.info, as well as the terms of use of this parcel of land, which follow below this notice.

And um, Desmond, be careful... There is clearly no Statute of Limitations in the CDS!

[Claude Desmoulins]

Rose,

Thanks for the catch in the covenants. That may take care of it. I hope the rest of the SC will chime in w/ their thoughts.

[Jamie Palisades]

Sonja, thanks for the thoughtful questions. I admit to not doing extensive "CDS legal research" here. But I THINK the bar against property confiscation without compensation is in the constitution, or older NL laws. It came from an era when people reasonably might have worried about a new government acting erratically.

( Which of course was the same thing that elicited the same response in some developed Western RL cultures, e..g., Magna Carta :D )

Also hmmm --- you think that the SC rule does *not* permit the SC to ban, or remove citizenship from, a *current* citizen? I would have guessed differently. Hmm so that means Gywn and her friends would have acted illegally to evict Ulrika, after Ulrika started tearing down all the common buildings?

Cheers JP