We need to talk

[solomon mosely]

no, the community bought the sim for her project and sold off the chunks of it she wasn't using. so in the end it paid for itself, thats great, but cds still bought the sim and she subsidized the tier till cds was able to sell off what it could. i can appreciate that since it was her pet project.

[Soro Dagostino]

Gentlemen, while I support your inclusive views and the merger -- one lesson to learn in these forums . . don't get into a fight with Sudane . . . she will make sure you buy the dinners for the next month. She rarely, if ever, makes mistakes.

[Robert Walpole]

Gwyn,

Your specific CDS form of representative democracy, where in a virtual community of 100 or less power is in fact delegated to fewer than 10 individuals, who are nominated to sit in the RA though party lists, not direct elections, who then choose the Chancellor and confirm (or not) SC members, where SC members become RA members from one term to the next and vice-versa, and where some (you, for example) have occupied almost without break an RA or SC position for the past 6 years, where citizens' numbers are tightly restricted and controlled, and where the majority are excluded from debates and daily governance, where 1 person 1 vote is used to justify this all without realising that democracy, in its true sense, is rather more than the purely procedural act of voting for one candidate at an election, and where citizens displaying any type of cultural, political and intellectual diversity are treated as foreign virus infestations to be expelled from the system of governance (but welcomed to keep staying on and paying tier!) is the kind of fundamentalist representative democracy closer in kind to the democratic centralism of former soviet dictatorships than to the mixed types of representative, direct, and pluralistic forms of democratic governance that are now in use in many - if not most - democracies. I prefer "government of the people, by the people, for the people". So do many others. CDS has "government of absentee landlords, for absentee landlords, by absentee landlords and their supporters". In all this, you forget that, at the end of the day, all CDS-and-AA really is, is a collection of virtual pixels with no independent existence from the community it is indended to serve as a place to gather, to interact, to learn, to relax, to communicate, to grow. Your CDS does little or none of that. AA focuses primarily on that. THAT is the real conflict. CDS is a monument to its builders. AA is a setting for a living community. Neither wants to become the other. That does not mean they are morally or ethically equivalent. Democracy is more than absentee landlords and empty buildings: it is the DEMOS itself: a living, thriving, growing, self-governing community of citizens equal in their differences and respectful of each other's opinions, where all particpate in community life and where governing institutions are only a means, not the sole end of the project.

I stopped believing long ago that CDS could change. Yes, I had some temporary and short-lived relapses. I should have known better. As I said before, I am no longer involved in either project and have no particular view of what should happen now. But those who do have a vote should really see things as they are and ask themselves two key questions: What do we really want to achieve, as a community? And how can we achieve this best? Not forgetting, of course, the financial implications that necessarily underpin each alternative. Above all, not forgetting that the only reason AA survived is because Rose supported it financially though thick and thin. Whatever disagreements there may have been between us, this is a simple and incontrovertible fact. Rose kept her word and kept the AA community alive at great personal cost.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Your specific CDS form of representative democracy, where in a virtual community of 100 or less power is in fact delegated to fewer than 10 individuals, who are nominated to sit in the RA though party lists, not direct elections,

1. Per the most recent reforms, there are no longer faction lists, although there are still factions, and voters will vote directly for RA candidates in the upcoming election.
2. Your figure of 10 individuals is, I guess, based on the concept that all power rests with the RA. Considering that the SC, Chancellor, and Estate Owners might in fact have some power, gets you to something like 20-25.

[Robert Walpole]

1. Per the most recent reforms, there are no longer faction lists, although there are still factions, and voters will vote directly for RA candidates in the upcoming election.

Which is exactly why P. Murakami and others want the RA seats reduced and the de-merger to take place. With, as next step, re-introduction of party lists, Burda counts, and candidate-less RA places to be allocated by party bosses as they wish... Which is how CDS has functioned since inception and until now.

2. Your figure of 10 individuals is, I guess, based on the concept that all power rests with the RA. Considering that the SC, Chancellor, and Estate Owners might in fact have some power, gets you to something like 20-25.

The Chancellor is elected by the RA, the SC is confirmed by the RA, and in any case people easily move back and forth between the two from one term to the next. Historical examples of blatant conflicts of interest and music-chair shifting of positions so that some individuals have been, in fact, occupying one or the other of these posts almost uniterruptedly since inception, abound.

A huge concentration of power in the hands of 10 or so individuals who have remained rather constant over the years, despite the comings and goings of others who quickly get disillusioned with the system or are literally driven away (granted, not from the sims where they pay tier - just from the institutions of power...). In order to preserve their privileges, they gutted an independent and professional judiciary was. Despite it having been duly approved by the RA itself at the time. And now, that the new STV system and larger RA risks overturning this sytem, those same individuals who a year ago wanted a merger in the hope of extending CDS institutions to AA, realise that the only way back to preserving their privileges and power and way of doing things is a de-merger and return to a 5 or 7 member RA.

I am not arguing here either for or against demerger. Just to make clear how the CDS system has worked until now, and what the underlying, real motivations of P. Murakami and a few others have always been and remain.

Anyway, enough of this. It feels too much like old times. I truly don't need that. You all have fun playing your games.

[Kaseido_Quandry]

I think y'all have proven my point pretty thoroughly.

Look at the election mechanics. We've got, what, 15 people running for 13 seats? Assume the two most obstructionist, hateful, useless candidates (of your choice) lose. Then look at who's left. For any value of "we," there's no way "we" can toss/keep the bastards out. Representatives from AA are going to have to face a significant bloc of procedure-drunk traditionalist do-nothings. The CSDF is going to face a significant bloc of nihilist, spendthrift AA radicals. At least half a dozen *sheer bastards* (ideally, myself included! ) are going to get elected.

What is that RA going to spend its term doing? I *guarantee* you, as much poisoning the well and destroying each other's legitimacy, culture, community spirit and willingness to participate, as doing anything constructive, positive or unifying. Don't believe me? Just read this thread: we're *all* doing it right here, and have been for the past few months.

Towards what end? The CSDF has made it clear: they're going to fight any changes to the CDS structure and culture. We in AA have made it clear: we will *not* be assimilated.

So why keep beating this dead horse?

Rose is right: the people of CDS and AA, outside the political caste, have been learning and practicing democratic self-organization. Cooperation at the real level is taking root and spreading. Those of us who attend RA meetings and participate in the forum have united the two communities - against our useless shenanigans (you call it democracy, I call it shenanigans. Whatever - we're the problem, and people are routing around the damage).

The best thing we can do right now, and for the coming while, is STFU and get out of their way. We can do that by taking the *politics* of merger off the table, and letting people who want to actually do things get on with the social and practical job of building working ties between the two cultures.

Or, y'know, we can keep tearing each other down till there's nothing left.

Hey, either way, I get a kick-ass publication out of it, so, have at it...

[Arria Perreault]

no kidding it hasn't worked gwen, this RA hasn't done anything to try. people are frustrated because the "CDS" government hasn't been "leading". what has the chancellor done to organize her web of PIOs to organize and manage public events? to sell more land? to develop the next project in the GMP?

As far as I know, we had events since the beginning of this term: Flamenco in AA and Winter Kanto in LA. The Chancellor has confirmed that CDS will pay for the weekly Flamenco event. The regional committe of LA and CN has meet and launched a project of open houses which starts tonight (don't miss it). We have improved the portal, open a Twitter account and a Facebook page. At the beginning of the term, all available parcels were set for sale and most of them are sold now. It's better to talk about facts ...
We have even tried to redevelop the sim of Sacromonte, but we got barriers on this project.

when at a town hall a while back, i was "corrected" by you gwen, when i said arria got her monastery sim and should stop ranting about how no one listened to her and supported her projects, which i believe was in reference to why we (CDS, referenced as a separate entity, not as a whole) were supporting AA events.
i pointed out that cds bought the whole sim for her project, but i was told "no, she paid for it". lie. wrong, you lied to me and everyone at the meeting gwen. cds did purchase the sim, arria paid for 4 months of tier.

so i guess that means arria and csdf got what they wanted, so its time to chuck the other project that serves so many others and may compete with the monastery as the cultural hub of cds.

pat, aren't you csdf? gwen?

About the Monastery, it would be better to know all the informations before to attack this project. As Sudane has explaned, the CDS did not pay anything for this sim. I don't think the Monastery can be seen as a "gift" to Arria Perreault. This project was not easy to make and to achieve. I got many barriers. I was requested by the Executive to make an sustainable project in a financial perspective. There is an agreement between me and the CDS published in this forum.

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2395

The Monastery sim was also integrated in the GMP; it was widely discussed in the community (one and a half year), reviewed by the Guild.

It was voted in the RA:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2458

It was never seen as a private sim, but on the continuation of the Alpine theme in the GMP.

The sim was built by me and Ulysse Alexandre. We did not charge any L$ to CDS for our buildings, even if it is possible.

Since the Monastery as institution exists (the first location was on Alpine Meadow), it did no get one L$ from CDS. The Monastery parcel is not my personal property. The real owner is the alt of Virtus, Mona Schism. The Monastery as institution is totally private and has no protection from CDS. It means that if Virtus fails to pay the fees, the parcel will be repossessed and the building removed. The CDS community (and the AA community) can enjoy the building and the activities of the Monastery for free. I know at least two cases of citizen who have entered the CDS by visiting the Monastery. This is not a bad conversion index. The Monastery is also a part of the visiting card of the CDS.

Arria Perreault got money only once from CDS: my salary when I served as PIO. For the amount I got, I have buil with other people the portal. If you know the cost of such a work in the real world, you can consider what we did for CDS.

For all these reasons, I don't appreciate to be considered as a rascal trying to gouge the CDS. I belong to the group of people who have volunteered a lot for the community, but got mainly as salary critics (and now insults). To be frank with you, I don't recognize the Solomon I have met when you came to CDS, who offered me his first model of the roman chair he designed. This guy was nice ...

[solomon mosely]

robert, thank you, i just havent banged my head against it enough i guess.

kas, i completely understand your argument for a new form of cooperation. however, i really hate the idea of losing what has been started because a few, as you very well pointed out, the csdf, are the one's causing the political drama to get their way. it's letting them win over what so many others worked to do.
as for your publication, this should ad some juice...

and gwen, holy cow, what a giant, distracting tumble of words you dumped out there. i know you were just coming to the defense of yourself and your employee, sudane, who works for you at beta, and i understand she's just towing the line and trying to protect her boss and her bosses interests, but really, was all that really necessary?

damn, where to begin? (whew, you are good at this political kung fu stuff, huh? no wonder you've been able to hang in there so long, exhausting the opponent, good technique.) i'll just jump in.... at the start i reserve the right to jump around and grab bits of your stuff from around the pile you left.

hah, for one, your mention of my quoting out of context, which you never pointed out what quotes were out of context from where. But maybe you were refering your your quotes of mine that are extremely out of context and rely on people not really reading back. here, lemme show you:

"they [...] thought they could do something to change that and bring something more productive to CDS". Which I read: "nonono you guys at the CDS have been doing everything wrong in your 6-old-profitable-community, let's change all that". Hmm. But it seems clear that many AA citizens actually agree with you. Apparently the common notion is that the CDS is rotten to the core, does not work, and is a failure in all aspects, and the AA is seen as the "saviour" which would "redeem" the nasty, naughty CDSers and "save" them. Well, I couldn't disagree more with you on this, Solomon. Bad or good, the CDS has endured almost 6 years of profitability, with a representative democracy (not a tyranny), and shows relatively good numbers, even if growth is small. So people are nasty on the forums? That's tough, but that's freedom of expression. The RA is "not productive"? That's tough too: that's why we have an Executive to "be productive". There is a failure to understand the roles of the many institutions of the CDS Government and I admit it might be hard to separate them. The RA is not an executive branch. It doesn't organize events. It doesn't even tell what events are supposed to be organize, nor makes any suggestions. Years ago we have found that the RA is not the best place to deal with the community management of the CDS. It's too slow for that. The RA are no "leaders", they are legislators, which is a quite different story! They pass legislation to allow the Executive to do its work smoothly (and of course it also validates if the Executive is doing a good job or not). There is a whole world of difference between the two approaches. The RA is not supposed to "lead"!

(wow, way to throw Sonja under the bus... and guess which part of that i'm gunna quote again later, probably close with?)
here's my real, original quote, starting with a little bit from before the sentence you started from. (shoot, i missed a comma below, after "consistency", sorry)

"i applaud your consistency that and your repetition are the key to any good brainwashing, training, marketing or political campaigns.

i think its gross, again. AA spent over a year in talks about politics. government, themselves, and the CDS. They knew all about us. in fact, i bet they knew all about the rascals and garbage on the forums and wasted time and thought they could do something to change that and bring something more productive to CDS. i'll even double down on the fact that you expect they believe that too, which is why you want them gone so badly. you know very well that it's your style of leadership that people want changed."

So again, i will applaud your consistency, you're a pro. i see where pat gets it from.
you can see there that my statement and intention was very clear, and has been. it's not to dismantle the CDS, the RA, or any of it's government, nor do i state that i think that's what AA wanted, it was and still is, about how the players play the game, yes, like you and pat and no, i in no way speak for AA, nor ever claimed to, but you knew this, smartie-pants. that's why you had to make that mis-quote and conveniently left off (avoided, we'll see more on that word later!) quoting the end of that line "you know very well that it's your style of leadership that people want changed."
so i think i make it clear there that i think "it is your style of leadership that people want changed". i didn't mention anything about changing the government, because that's not what i meant. and so, by your choosing to omit that, i think i was right that "you expect they believe that too, which is why you want them gone so badly." which gets toooo....

i love how you left out the part about "wasted time" as one of the things that people might be sick of. especially after making them read all that garbage. oh, that's the other one, how dare i call your wild-goose-chase of a post, garbage! honk! next! gunna quote you now

if one looks to your quote above, they will see two (2) references, in the same paragraph, to the 6 yea old CDS as "profitable", as... wait, i gotta just grab this next bit, gwen: "Solomon. Bad or good, the CDS has endured almost 6 years of profitability, with a representative democracy (not a tyranny), and shows relatively good numbers, even if growth is small." That was the second "profit" reference, and granted, "profitable" isnt the only word you use to describe CDS, you do mention the "good numbers", small growth, yada yada.
Now, all of that was quoted by you when you were defending the CDS as a democratic institution, not a financial entity, when you were trying to tell people i was trashing democracy and the CDS.
A quote from "madame" gewn in the same post: "A lot has been constantly suggested to "turn" the AA into an asset (using your words; I personally dislike the idea of thinking of vibrant community of very engaged and participative citizens as merely an "asset")"

well good for you, so righteous. i hope everyone saw your selfless divinity. cheers!

so yes, i know damn well who my audience is, and i was referring to making AA, that others have been referring to like a loss-leader that isn't leading or worth the loss, into a source of greater financial benefit and um, continue to not actually lose money (why am i even making this point again...? oh yea, cuz the pat and gwen show keep avoiding and mis-representing it.), but maybe make more above cost than it is already, since it doesnt seem to be pulling enough of it's financial weight for some. and i will admit, it could stand to raise more than it does for rainy-day funds and activities, but i don't think that raising tier has anything to do with it. and maybe raising tiers as the most logical way to fix whatever the financial issues you think there are, is what is ticking AA people off. maybe having the new leadership raise it's rent wasn't first on their list of things to get done after the merger. weirdos.... (sarcasm)

"now, solomon," you might say, "are you avoiding the issues of substance from gwen's post? what about all your accusations about the inactivity of RA and exec this past term regarding AA and CDS, and her astute rebuttal, quoting of several distinct actions?" ( RA, by the way, as gwen stated, are not the leaders, but the people that are elected to be the ones to propose (regular citizens can too, as she said) and pass legislation that controls the state and it's affairs, but they are not the leaders, that's the exec., just so no one is confused)

(Note: this bit was dumped out just behind gwen's "asset" comment) Gwen: "Most of those suggestions were indeed implemented — changing the voting system (no more factions), allocating budgets to regional committees instead of planning it centrally at the Executive. Other things the CDS avoided to implement to allow AA citizens to feel more comfortable: open-to-all informal meetings (e.g. Town Hall meetings); avoiding to touch the issue of group citizenship; avoid to re-plan any of the AA sims (and stop discussing that in public!) to make them profitable; staying away from the issue of collecting tier under an unified model. So, yes, these are indeed "ways" to deal with the problem. When it was publicly said that all of the above was not enough, the question, echoed by many, was: "what should we do more?"" whoo! a big one! that one must have felt good! but lets take a look at the "actions".

the first three things she mentions there are actual actions: 1) "changing the voting system (no more factions)" (FYI: "(no more factions)" is bush-esque, double speak, much like the famous "no child left behind", for keeping factions, but not requiring people to be in them to run for office.), very good, i applaud that, i didnt like it anyway and i think it was very "white" of pat and csdf to open the election market up to outside competition, but i bet this was waaayyy worth that sacrifice than risking the numbers an AA faction would generate for seats in the RA! aaand, you got to keep you club! woot! ( "no more factions".... pfft); 2) the regional allocation of budgets, which will not only be very useful for AA, but also for the new csdf run monastery sim, thank you, csdf, for getting that settled for the benefit of everyone, i bet having to share that was kind of annoying; 3) and the implementation of public forums on the off-RA weeks, very good, a great place with little management that, (it seems like you're giving pat credit for all this, sooo..) csdf initiated, and so gets to run, and that turns out to be a pretty great place to spread your propaganda like fertilizer around the community, brilliant! it really is a very good idea, i'm a big fan of public meetings.

and the rest are "actions of inaction", which we should be grateful for, like thanking the school bus driver for not driving into trees or cars along the road side. if you thought they were so important, why would you "avoid" them? my guess is they potentially ran into areas you and csdf A) couldn't control B) didn't benefit from C) thought benefited someone else that you don't favor.

and now, moving along...

Solomon, I read in your words that the whole intention for AA to join the merger was to get rid of "people like Pat" or myself, and let me quote some interesting remarks you did, deliberately out of context, where they reveal pretty much what you're aiming at:

you never really say what you think i was aiming, or what quotes i made that were out of context, or what they were out of context from.

for one

"AA [...] They knew all about us.". At the light of the recent discussions, I would say that there was quite a lot they didn't know about the CDS, or they wouldn't have approved the merger. At least Ashcroft and Carolyn were always consistent in what they thought about the CDS.

your selective memory and busted tactics left out part. here's the quote "AA spent over a year in talks about politics. government, themselves, and the CDS. They knew all about us."

they talked about government, and made a small study of the CDS and learned what they could. good for them, they should have. and apparently there's thngs about CDS that most don't knw, especially new people. i assume you're referring to the insider trading of sudane and her land grabs in new sims like LA, or the csdf and the history of plotting and scheming for maintaining control, and the intensity with which that status quo is defended. yea, you're prolly right, why would they or anyone want to sign a deal with that? for the same reason i did and stay maybe? maybe because they, like i, know that we don't have to tolerate the leadership, we can change it. you can be voted out. that's what i'm shooting for. not an end to the cds or democracy, but to politics like you and your party and cronies play them. and that's the part that really and rightfully bothers you.

and as for the guild, i didnt realize they were on a 'stike'. while that's a shame, it's better than just not bothering anymore, which is what i thought was happening. i like the guild and there seems to be a lot to do. it's too bad that it's choosing to hold its projects hostage till 'things settle down". could that really be because it's led by, or sorry, maybe that's inaccurate, not led, but the secretary of the board for the guild, the highest post in the guild who tends to direct activity, is your RL "roommate"?
i really like moon. she runs a great group, very well, and has always been very supportive of my efforts and patient with me, too patient, maybe.
but i would hate to think that this was a calculated 'strike' to add more pressure and tension to the merger situation? or is it to "punish" the CDS and those who dared question the selection of chancellor?

ok, time for dinner. and that's all i have energy for now. but before i do, that quote of miss gwen's i promised: "So people are nasty on the forums? That's tough, but that's freedom of expression."

thank you for the reminder.

[solomon mosely]

oh, and the "just go away" thing was about leaving the leadership. as in, "get out of the way" in RA. that was an off-the-cuff, after thought of way of suggesting you and pat to step down or at least back out of the next RA race. sorry for the confusion.

[Delia Lake]

I awoke late this morning. I noticed your shoes were not by your side of the bed. You left early today? Then I saw your note.

I think we both know it isn't working. It's not that I don't love you, it's just that I'm not *in* love with you any more. It's not you, it's me. But neither of us are very happy and I think we should talk. Pat

At first I was upset, even angry. I felt betrayed. I was glad I had kept ""my house, in addition to "our" house. I packed up some of my clothes and dishes (the ones I didn't break when I threw some at you last time we fought), and ran as fast as I could to my special retreat, my home. I flopped down on the damp grass looking up at my horse, her large dark eyes sparkled. I jumped on her back and started to ride, down to the beach and through the waves, cold water splashing on my face. I looked back from the Albaycin dune and in the clear blue air could see all the way to the mountains of Neufreistadt. I turned and rode through the woods, through the sheep pasture and the olive grove and across the river to the Summer Palace garden in Al Alandalus Generalife. The beautiful white moorish architecture radiated in the afternoon sun. I thought about Friday evening flamenco with Joaquin...dancing, laughing, meeting friends... Then I trotted on up to the plaza in front of the Mosque--large, solid, yet so peaceful inside. Where had I put that green ribbon I wore at the vigil there in support of the courageous Iranians demonstrating for freedom, for the right to choose their destiny? Caught in memories, I rode on. I rode through the Souk, and all the way through to the Armory. I thought about Feria...how much I had loved the riding tours and how silly I felt trying to ride the mechanical bull. I was caught by the excitement of riding again. Out the gates, down along the grand homes, to the square on Al Garnata. The library, finally coming to life as a history and inspiration of tolerance, learning and even collaboration among diverse cultures and beliefs. Thank you Silver Pen. A new theater! I'm eagerly awaiting its first performance. Down the path I can see Colonia Nova. Interesting...I can't tell by looking that I am crossing territories. I take out my camera and start snapping. I trot into the Ampitheatre. So many times I've sat there with friends participating with them in Metanomics broadcasts. And the RA debates. What a poignant contrast between the citizens of the CDS querying their candidates for election to the RA and the masses of Iranian protesters we held in our hearts at the vigil. What those people would give to be able to have an open and honest election debate. On a whim I rode into the Thermae. To my surprise I found someone there! An explorer who found Colonia Nova by happenstance. After the pleasantries of greeting, she asked me "Where are all the people? The scenery is so beautiful, and so diverse in it's range. But you are the only one I've seen here." I said there would be people around in the evening...more pleasantries...but ringing in my ears as I rode on past the marvelous Roman architecture was "Where are all the people?"

Through the gates and into Locus Amoenus. Still Roman in style but so different in feel from Colonia Nova. I raise my camera above the top of the wall. Terracotta tile roofs as far as I can see: Locus Amoenus, Colonia Nova, and on to the domiciles of Alhambra. Racing down the cobblestones through Limani, I reach the harbor. I reign up short at the quai. The Black Sparrow! Pirates Ball tonight! Turning around I start up the hill, but divert onto Common Ground between buildings. From the riverbank, I look across and up to the Monastery and Alpine Meadow. Out of the corner of my eye, to the right I see a windmill. I thought I knew these lands but I don't remember ever seeing it before. OK Fandango, let's ford the river. Who needs a bridge when she has a horse! From the opposite bank I gaze back at the Praetorium. The site of argumentative posturing or of contentious wrangling to forge a more perfect union (channeling Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin here?? )? Hmmmm..........upon consideration I prefer to hold the later. I turn up the hill and walk slowly through Inspiration Park. Fandango drinks from the fountain. How many conversations I've had here; how many new friends I've met here... Back on the cobblestones, Decumanum (Via Main)and into that treacherous and jarring passage between Colonia Nova and Alpine Meadow. It always feels like falling into the abyss. But almost immediately I'm greeted by the Taverna's Bulgarian waitress entreating me to music and drink. I can't help but smile broadly. My friend Naftali steps outside to welcome me. Has it only been three years? We've shared so much that I feel like I've known her forever.

Mexana Monica Taverna. The name makes me think of Mexico but the building is alpine. Facherwerks. Bavarian. I peer down the lane, across the rushing river full with spring melt to where the Monastery used to be. Benedictine? I realize I've never asked and make myself a note. Monastery life and culture was as crucial to the formation of the trading league network of historical Bavaria as the Moor's culture of tolerance was to Andalusia. What a wondrous quilt of patchworked flavors these territories are.

I ride on up the hill, over the bridge and around the curve hugging the side of the mountain. I stop at the first overlook taking in the falls that Bjerkel and I so carefully guided over the rocks. I love that each of the three bridges are each a different style. I love the grandeur of the views, in all directions. I leave the lane and gallop up the mountainside. Out of breath, me and Fandango both, we stop again at an overlook. I bend over the wall and look deep into the waters of the lake. Is that perch still swimming there? Maybe someone caught it?

A short cantor across the bridge and turn right and I'm in Neufreistadt. A stand of birch hasn't leafed out yet. Maybe I can coax it. Just over the hill in the valley is my office. Good neighbors within shouting distance. My door is always open, and so are theirs. So much work I've done from there. Much of my book manuscript was written at that desk. Memories etched in my mind forever.

The mountain is so steep that running it drained my energy. I tether Fandango in the Platz and take refuge in the Kirche. It isn't the first time. I've often entered here for solace. And also for lively philosophical discussions, and for rapturous classical music concerts. I slouch in a pew. On my left standing stiff as ever are the confessionals. I've never used one of those. Should I? Do I have sins to confess? Maybe, but those doored boxes seem so sterile and impersonal.

I glance around and hear Fandango snort. Walking through the massive doors onto the Platz I imagine the hubub of drinking and dancing that is Oktoberfest. The memory warms my tired soul. I walk across the wide stone square and have an overwhelming urge to go home. Home to our home. We are so different, you and I, and yet that may be the beauty of our relationship. I'm glad you are no longer "in love." I've never found infatuation to be a worthy base for a lasting relationship. My best relationships have drawn strength from respect and appreciation, from challenging each other to be the best we can be, from laughing together, lots of heartfelt laughter; from that certain knowledge that each of us could go our own way and make out OK but that neither would ever be quite as good alone as the we that could be.

I open the door to our home and sit down on the rug in front of our bookcase. I stare at the volumes of history, mentally sorting which I would want for mine and which you would insist on taking. It might be painful but we could work that out. I look out of the window at the garden we started last summer. Some of the plants are flowering beautifully. Others seem to be struggling. All of a sudden feel a wet nose on my cheek. Our dog greets me, wagging her tail and licking my face. Our dog, greeting me joyfully as I've seen her greet you. How, how could we split up the dog? I think we need to talk...

[solomon mosely]

thank you

[Robert Walpole]

By far the most moving and heartfelt and honest commentary I have ever read on this forum. Naturally, it comes from you Delia. Thank you.

[Arria Perreault]

To talk about what? The first day you were in my house, I was so happy to have you there. I had prepared everything to welcome you. But you started to claim about everything and even to express doubts about my honesty. You even came with your friends and they were all claiming with you. Should I mention the day we had to choose a manager for our common stuffs? You and your friends, you did the same. It was a kind of shame to hear so much noise on a so important moment.
And all the critics about the way I was communicating. I have tried to improve everything to make you happy. More I have set channels, more I got critics. Now I am overconnected and you still tell me "we need to talk".
Came the day where I told that I did not have so much money to spend. Of course, I have a reserve. Both of us, we know what happens when we use the reserve for going out and have some fun. Better to make projects: a new home for example. But no, you continue to claim, to say I am avaricious. I just try to find a way for both of us. In this domain, we are different. I try to think to the future and you consider that we have to enjoy the present moment. Carpe diem. It's your moto. Who knows what can happen. Your net income doesnt cover one month of expense and you want to organize parties. As you did not stop to claim, I have continued to pay, to give you money so you can have fun.
All my efforts did not make you happy ... Did you ever tell me "thank you" or "I love you"?
You find me ugly, old, conservative, discontented. You are not able to mention any quality I could have. Why would you marry me ? I have really tried my best. Do you ? In a couple, we have to be two persons to build the relation. If it is not the case, it will never work.
You still have my phone number. If you are ready to think a bit about it, to change, to be more responsible, call me ...

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I can only smile at the irony of the comments here Gosh, it's tough to fight for democracy; Prof. Rummel is right — there really needs to be much more awareness of what democracy means, since it's incredible, for my simple mind, how aggressively the whole concept of democratic participation is publicly trashed as "power games", and solutions are proposed (or hinted; to be honest, I'd love to see a concrete proposal for a change, instead of having to interpret word nuances...) to just get rid of it.

Michel, I seriously would like to understand what is wrong with a model where 100 people elect 10 representatives. On a company with 100 shareholders, they are not all sitting on the Board — they elect their managing executive team. On a non-profit with 100 members they elect a board. On a little village of 100 inhabitants, they elect their Town Councillors (or whatever they're called in your country). Sometimes there can be as little as 10 people elected out of 100... sometimes even less (most 100-inhabitant-villages might just have 2 or 3 elected officials). So explain to me what's so fundamentally wrong with that, because, frankly, I cannot understand it. The only rational explanation is that you all dislike the whole concept of electing representatives. That's fine! I'm sorry if I disagree; I'm too old to believe in anything else but representative democracy, even though I fully admit that there are other stable forms of government, like China and many Near East countries have proved. But I'm not interested in living under either of those.

Then perhaps it's just the way people are elected. Again, on companies, just the CEO might be elected — he or she will then assemble the rest of the executive members. It's a possibility (in the CDS, only the Chancellor is elected, the rest of the members of the Executive are appointed by the Chancellor). On non-profit associations, at least the many I've been a member of, candidates run on "lists" (you could call them "factions"), usually with 3-10 members, depending on the size of the association. It's not unusual for a 100-member-association to have a 10-person board (in my country, 9 are mandatory, whatever the size of the association, although some roles can be combined). On small towns it really varies a lot from country to country, region to region. Factions are popular, even if they might not be "political parties" but just groups of citizens that throw their names into the same list; or there might be completely faction-less systems using STV, like in Australia and elsewhere. In any case, the model is always the same: those 100 people elect the ones that will manage the organisation for them for a while.

If the "terror of factions" is what makes you be so aggressive against democracy, fear not! We have changed the way RA members are elected. Now they can be faction-less. Problem solved?... so what are you complaining about?

Oh, I see: it's the way the Chancellor gets elected. The original idea was that the Chancellor was supposed to be appointed like a Prime Minister from the winning faction. But this was felt to be inadequate — so we have the current model, where the RA members act as a collegial electorate, voting on the Chancellor on behalf of the citizens. You're unhappy with this model? Fine! Let's elect the Chancellor by a direct vote. I'm not only fine with that, but it has been discussed before, and it seems to be the most reasonable solution for most. Problem solved?...

But I think that the real reason behind the argument is that "always the same people get elected". Well... what can I say? People are allowed to vote in whomever they prefer Or they can abstain from voting, if that's their will. On every election, the major difficulty we have is to get enough candidates willing to serve. For the upcoming term, a long-reasoned argument was that the "faction" system prevented more people to run as candidates, so, by abolishing the system tied to factions, more and more people would be able to get elected. Yesterday we had 12 registered candidates for 13 seats. Today is the final day for announcing further candidates. Will we have enough candidates to fill all 13 seats?... I don't know. STV is also a fickle voting system, and might not elect all seats — some might remain vacant after the election, and require a special election just to fill them.

So the issue here is not having "too many candidates" — it's having "too little". Obviously I'm aware of the usual arguments: people hate the RA, they hate the "political games", they hate everything the CDS stands for, so they don't run for office. Well... then don't complain if the very few who are willing to serve are often the same ones Actually, I have to applaud the courage of Solomon and Kaseido to run for office, and congratulate them in advance. It takes courage to step ahead and commit to 6 months of exposure — it's not for the faint of heart. That's why so few actually apply for candidacy. But is it the fault of those few that they get elected?! I'm baffled at that allegation. if you want different (and more!) candidates, just announce your willingness to serve, campaign, get votes, get elected.

Surely you cannot blame the very few who are willing to stand as candidates and the citizens that actually vote!

Well, of course you can, because, as said, you don't really want a democracy.

Under democracies, people make mistakes, and they take the blame for making mistakes — usually failing to get re-elected if they don't correct them in time. As said before, I'm quite willing to accept that the CDS did several mistakes in its past. It will very likely make more mistakes in the future. But far worse than making mistakes is to refuse to correct them. Having no Executive before 2007 was a mistake. The Judiciary System was a nice idea, but it completely split the community — what was more important, "a nice idea" or accepting the citizens' wishes? In the end, the citizens won (as they should under a democracy), and we implemented a much lighter and reduced form of a Judiciary System, which, in any case, never had any complains to deal with anyway. And now we come to the merger. It seemed a perfect idea a year ago. Since a lot of citizens were "dual citizens" already, it seemed easy to work on a transition phase under a common model. But it's now clear that there is no "common" model that will please both parts. Usually, in real life, when two forms of government clash against each other, the overarching model that is the "best of all bad solutions" is a democracy. Gosh, I really don't have to point at history, have I...? Nevertheless, it's clear that having a democracy as an overarching form of government over both the CDS and the AA is not acceptable as a solution. Only a benign dictatorship with a lot of meritocracies and adhocracies is acceptable to many AA citizens.

But that's fine. It's their wish as citizens. But I personally cannot accept that, and have said so, for as many years as I've been in SL The "D" in CDS stands for Democracy, not Dictatorship, and will remain so, for as long as there are people believing in democracy in the CDS. And anyone disagreeing with us can vote us out of office and implement whatever form of government they prefer. As we all learned in history, the biggest weakness of all democracies is that a majority can overthrow it by a popular vote, as happened to many countries before WWII and is happening today in Venezuela. But before that happens I will still stand for democracy, even if that costs us an election (which would be the supreme irony, but at this stage, I'm prepared to believe everything's possible in the CDS).

You, Michel, who ironically defend a model without elections, attack the poor few who are willing to run for office and be subjected to insults and public defamation (but nevertheless do it because they believe in freedom of speech) and accuse them... of preserving their privileges? Pray, what "privileges" are those? The privilege to be publicly slandered? Thanks, but I employ the word "privilege" in a quite different context

Solomon, if your whole point is to prove that I'm not perfect, I gladly concede you the rhetoric victory. I'm not and never claimed to be. I make mistakes, a lot of them.

If your point is that the CSDF is fighting for democracy, again, I gladly concede your point. Perhaps your question is "why now?" Well it's just recently that it became clear that the whole point of the merger agreement — which states "one government to administer and manage all sims" was to create a government that is not democratic, not elected, and where opinions on forums and other public events, "because they create drama and scare people away", are to be curbed or even outlawed. Sorry. I totally stand against that and will continue to do so. Call me naïve if I thought otherwise a year ago; I am naïve and usually work from the working assumption that people have good intentions and that things will sooner or later fit into place. I'm often disappointed because that's rarely the case. So, yes, I admit to having been naïve. But sometimes I wake up from my naïveness, too Sorry if your so well-executed plan has worked admirably well for so many months and I'm sorry if I have to spoil it now. And yes again, it's a question of principles — if your question is "between community and democracy, what do you choose?" I will have to choose democracy first — because that's what the CDS stands for.

Just for the sake of the argument, I was quoting you out of context, not you. The whole point of the comment was simple: if citizens don't like their representatives, they can vote them out — not abolish democracy in order to change the system. Only people who feel threatened by the citizens' vote will ever propose that. I don't "want anybody to go away badly" — I will vote for that.

You mention the financial issue again. That's fine, when we started the merger, we had good numbers from both the AA and the CDS. We all knew that the SL land market is under a crisis; nobody was expecting "miracles". But when it became apparent that a lot things would have to be done — replanning sims, reparcelling them, privatising public buildings, controlling voting but non-paying citizens, and so forth; a whole programme of serious and deep reform — everybody jumped up and yelled "NO WAY!". So, ok, perhaps just a few were actually interested in showing a good return after just a year of common management: in the whole process of making the merger work, showing nice numbers would have been an extra bonus. However, it's not really a requirement — nothing in the agreement "required" the numbers to look good in July 2010. The two communities together have enough money to be able to cover the costs of all sims, at least until July. Sure, some started questioning if this could go on and on after July — and thus the argument that perhaps we should be more careful about event spending. Now the cry of "THE CDS WANTS TO RUIN THE EVENTS IN OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY!" was raised. And once more the issue was dropped and postponed.

Well, I'm sorry, but it's time to wake up and look at the reality. There has to be financial reform on the whole of the CDS/AA, because the AA operated out of the pockets of a benevolent benefactor. That's not bad by itself: most communities in SL work like that and they are eager to spend money from the benefactors. Sadly, one aspect of the merger was to push the benevolent benefactor out of the picture, and let the AA citizens start acting as responsible citizens and pay for what they use. That's tough. That's real life for you. That's also maturity. All that was utterly rejected. Well, fine! But what is the solution then — if we can't replan sims, if we can't privatise public buildings, if we cannot raise tier, if we can't even insist that citizens pay for the tier they use, and if we can't make any adjustments on the budget? What is left? Getting another benevolent benefactor? It's a possibility, of course, but none is stepping forward — and, as we know, benevolent benefactors love to become primus inter pares because, well, they're financing the whole operation. Under the circumstances, putting the responsibility of financial soundness into the hands of the citizens is the mature approach to adopt.

Solomon, we cannot abolish factions. See UDHR, Article 20 (1) "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association". We can just untie the requirement of belonging to a faction to be able to run for elections, and that's what we did. Your preposterous argument of "open the election market up to outside competition, but i bet this was waaayyy worth that sacrifice than risking the numbers an AA faction would generate for seats in the RA" is funny to read, but it's completely ludicrous. Nobody could be prevented from creating a new faction and running for elections. There is almost always a new faction every term; factions have come and gone, some have merged together, some have split and reformed. That's all fine and part of the process. But... it's history now. And you're also strangely assuming that the CSDF "runs" the RA, when it doesn't even have a majority of the votes (and never had in its history; under the old system, it was next to impossible for a faction to get a majority at the RA, and — be shocked! — this was deliberately meant to be so). Not surprisingly, the CSDF also never managed to elect a Chancellor or even have a member of the Executive; and although it's certainly true that the SC used to feature a couple of CSDF members for a while, for a year now not a single SC member is affiliated (or was) with the CSDF... so that theory of "power grabbing" is just that, a convenient theory. Unless, of course, you wish to build up a case for The Worst Conspiracy Ever Planned, since clearly all those "power plots" and "politics" always failed. We can see the results.

No, I think that what really bothers you is the freedom of speech That's a plural you; I get accused all the time of being "manipulative", which I find it immensely amusing. I haven't held personally a role of 'power' in the CDS for two years. In those two years, the only bills I proposed at the RA that were my own conception was to establish all power and authority over planning and building on the AA sims to Rose (subject to consultation with Satir and Delia regarding aesthetics) in an attempt to reflect the will of the AA citizens in that regard — effectively shutting down any attempts of the RA (or even the Executive) to "interfere" with anything locally decided by the AA citizens. So amongst the Worst Conspirators, I'm sure I have a special place in my private Conspirator Hell — the conspirator that is so incredibly stupid, that on the only time she gets an opportunity to get some bills approved as law, gives away all power to others Seriously, Solomon (and others), you need to do a reality check somewhere. I enjoy the figure of the "scapegoat", the one that "works behind people's backs" to "get her own will", because I find that perception immensely amusing. It reminds me of the Prokofy tactics (who, btw, is much better at defaming me in public; I guess he has much more experience). But unfortunately for all the lovers of conspiracy theories, my actions sadly contradict your theories — they are always to empower citizens to allow them more freedom and the ability to decide what they wish from the CDS. I just say a piece of my mind whenever appropriate; and sure, yes, I'm quite vocal when there is a need, but remain silent most of the time when the gears are well oiled and we're going ahead in the right direction — which is the direction of more empowerment of the citizens, more freedom of choice, more ability to participate in the decisions, less clinging to autocratic structures, and so forth.

Also, I cannot speak for the New Guild, but I think they just feel frustrated because their role has pretty much been ignored, but I admit that I don't have any official information from the NG. The last time I attended a meeting they had adopted a stance that I would describe as "wait and see". The last thing I heard them discussing was the planning of Neufreistadt II, but this met with considerable opposition from some AA citizens, who felt that this was neither the time nor the place to discuss any "expansion" of the old CDS sims. But since during this transition phase it would be quite clear that no changes/expansion would be deemed "acceptable" in the AA sims, the NG became dormant. The NG is apolitical and I hardly believe they're doing it "deliberately". At least that's how I read it; I'll be quite happy to be proven wrong about that. "Strike" is too harsh a word, and it has political connotations, so I will withdraw my remark.

So I'll refer back to Kas' proposal. I commend her lucidity and reasoning. I'm really sorry for the ones who have worked hard — and honestly, with goodwill — that believed that a merger of the two communities under the same democratically elected government was possible. I utterly despise the ones who, under the pretence of the motto "community first!", seeked out to undermine the democratic institutions and replace them by a meritocracy/adhocracy instead. I'm sorry, but the ends — having a vibrant community — don't justify the means — abolishing elections, rotativity of power, as well as freedom of speech.

Kas & Pat's suggestion proposes a much better suggestion. Yes, it's a "community first" proposal: saving the community — allowing everybody to stay under the government they prefer, keeping the land mass together, allowing co-operation in promotion, possibly even in common funding for events and activities. But keeping each model separate, and even fully allowing everybody to own plots on both communities if they wish. On the CDS sims, they will still be able to elect their representatives, and if they feel that the current batch doesn't defend their wishes well, they will continue to be able to vote them out of office and replace them, or run as candidates themselves.

"Don't whine, vote". That's how democracies work. And if you don't like to listen to what I say, just ignore me. It's your constitutional right. I don't know if the forum software allows you to mute people, but you're welcome to do so if you wish; you're not "forced" to listen to what I (or anyone else) say, in public or in private. But so long as the CDS remains a democracy and adheres to the UDHR (Articles 18 and 19), I'm afraid I'll remain allowed to express my opinion.

At least I loved Delia's article. Thank you for writing it, Delia. That's the kind of spirit we truly need to go on.

[Patroklus Murakami]

While i'm very tempted to continue Pat's metaphor, i'm not much of one for light hearted games when it comes to the future of our community. I am not going to divide up CDS and AA because that misses the entire point of the struggles of the last two years. What i am going to say is that i do not believe that Pat speaks for the citizens of CDS. Maybe a handful who were never excited about the potential of this merger in the first place. But the term of the RA in which the merger was adopted was interesting. The PEOPLE of CDS knew this was on the table. The PEOPLE of CDS elected an overwhelming majority of candidates who supported it. Pat was not one of those representatives. The other outspoken member of that faction who has also thrown up roadblocks to the completion of the merger is Gwyneth. Please review the RA transcripts from May 17 and May 30, 2009. Gwyneth in fact raised concerns at May 17 meeting. The issues encountered now are the same ones raised then. Gwyneth did not come to the May 30 meeting, nor did she use her right to 7 day vote. Yet she insists she supported the merger.

Despite all the words and all the rhetoric of these forums, the people of CDS voted in favor of representatives who wanted the merger. I am not an "autocrat" as some want to paint me as. So i will not, as Kas suggests, terminate this agreement prior to the CDS election. I think the number and quality of new people running for the CDS RA is a message that CDS DOES want change, that methods that are so dear to Pat and others do NOT represent the wishes of the CDS community. I believe the people deserve the chance to tell him so.

Many many people in CDS and AA have put in a lot of work to make this merger a success. It wasn't presented as a perfect union. That's why specific provisions were presented in the agreement. That's why it's so frustrating to see those specific provisions ignored.

As a candidate, I want to engage in debate about issues, not rhetoric. I won't supplant the democratic process by ignoring the many, many people who disagree with Pat.

You want to talk about the budget? let's talk. But let's remember when we do that we are talking about an 11 sim budget, not just the AA sims. We've always operated on a system that has had unequal support of public assets. So why do we suddenly divide up the sims to say AA spends too much? Events? You want to take shots at AA for having a weekly singer who costs 5,000 L. But that is the ONLY event in CDS on a regular basis.
I will go back and get the budget Jamie and I proposed last term and show you specifically why that one event is not overreaching. And i'm willing to talk about all the other issues that CDS is facing, without this elephant of the merger in the room. But right now, I'm going to work.

This is the most important reply to the thread I started, because Rose holds most of the cards

1. There's a really easy way to find out what the people of the CDS (including Al Andalus residents) want - ask them. That is why I have proposed adding a referendum question to the ballot in the May elections. Let's see what people actually want when they cast their own, private ballot according to the lights of their own conscience without someone else to interpret, represent or spin their views for them. One of the many reasons that representative democracy and secret ballots are so important is the ability to make that decision on your own and for it to count.

2. "i will not, as Kas suggests, terminate this agreement prior to the CDS election." I note that leaves the possibility that you *will* terminate the agreement after the elections. So, the tactic would appear to be this: "Let's see if we can get a 2/3 majority to deconstruct the CDS constitution and turn it into the AA model. Let's see if the forum harpies drive the people we don't like out of office and out of town. If we don't get our own way, we can always take AA out of the merger". If the end result is that the best we can hope for is that AA and CDS live side by side, with fraternal and cordial relations but with separate governance, why don't we work towards that instead of continuing to hope that one side can change the other by electoral or legal means?

3. You have been very critical of this RA which took office in February this year for failing on the terms of the merger. There is also an implied criticism of the new Chancellor Sonja who took over from your preferred choice Jamie. But Rose, the merger took place in July last year and from July until February Jamie was Chancellor, the RA was doing your bidding and from October onwards you were Deputy Chancellor. So, if the creation of a non-profit was such an issue why didn't you do something about it? Be fair Rose. You need to criticise both this RA and the previous one if you want to be consistent. You can criticise Sonja too, but you need to give Jamie some flak and take some yourself, if you want to remain credible.

4. It's clear that, in order to get this over sooner rather than later, the combined CDS and AA citizens need to deliver an RA with a 2/3 majority in favour of something like mine and Kas's proposal - what we in the CSDF are calling 'Cooperation, not annexation'. That will be really tough to get, it would need overwhelming support for an end to the merger to get that 2/3 majority. We can but try