Public law: citizen honorable conduct

[josjoha]

Public law: citizen honorable conduct

Preambule.

The Confederation of Democratic Simulators is a community of outstanding citizens,
who belief with whole their heart in their common ideals of decency, the right to speak
and dissent in the spirit of mutual respect for each others opinions, furthering our lives
and our shared treasure which is our belief in democracy. To secure our peace and
common solidarity with a ring of law for honorable citizen conduct, the following law ...

Privacy
1. Citizens will not enter each others home or cam into them, unless so invited or could
reasonable assume it was allowed by signs, lettering or land descriptions. A door left
open is not an invitation, as it could be an oversight or done by another. Punishment
in negotation with the offended citizen.

Nudity
2. Citizens are not naked on public streets or lands, beholden special weird events that
have been approved by the RA. Offending individuals receive a warning, if it is not
heeded can be banned.

Vulgarity
3. Repeated vulgarities with the intend to cause grief are not welcome in the CDS.

Stalking
4. Following a CDS citizen in the CDS is frowned upon if this occurs without the offended
citizen allowing it or it being reasonable for the occaision. The situation has to be brought
before a judge to decide what is to be done.

Chat
5. Harassement in chatboxes, vulgarities, hateful language, language designed to hurt,
flooding, are cases for the judiciary after the offended citizen has requested the activity
is halted by the offending person.

Religious freedom
6. The CDS is a free democracy, without a state religion. A religion has the right not to be
undully harassed, however can not demand differing religious or scientific opinion that
may offend its sensibilities to be removed for the sake of keeping differing opinions out
of sight as if they do not exist.

One people
7. Officials and elected representatives of the CDS democracy do not need to be adressed
with increased pomp: they are citizen representatives, from the citizenry and for
the citizenry.

----------------------------------------------

Best regards, josjoha

[Bells Semyorka]

I find this interesting. Great idea

[Pip Torok]

I find this interesting. Great idea

I find it interesting too, Bells ... the stuff of tyranny and nightmares.

We're a democracy, Bells. The rule is of the people, the citizens, each one of whom has a quite distinctive, inner-directed notion of what constitutes "honourable conduct".

Think of it, Bells. An outer-directed authority starts to dictate to you what your notion of honourable conduct is to be. It then imposes it upon you, points fingers, judges you, and applies sanctions upon you. Your reaction? You'd do what the people of East Germany were prevented from doing before 1989 ... you'd vote with your feet.

So what do we, with 77 different inner-directed notions of "honourable conduct", do? We talk, we compromise and do our best to get along by rubbing-shoulders with each other. It takes luck, perseverance, self-discipline, the ability to listen closely, and, above all, a realisation that we are people and not biddable sheep, and that the other fellow is as well.

"Parsons was Winston's fellow employee at the Ministry of Truth.
He was a fattish but active man of paralyzing stupidity, a mass of
imbecile enthusiasms - one of those completely unquestioning, devoted
drudges on whom, more even than on the thought police, the stability
of the Party depended."

-- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 2

Pip Torok

[Bells Semyorka]

Pip, i think it's a bit ridiculous to compare the citizen honorable conduct to tyranny and nightmares. I think a lot of these points are common courtesy that we should extend to one another effortlessly. I don't think this is a way to cast judgment or judge someone's actions but a way to ensure that people are treated with mutual respect. Something that can be lost if one party of a confrontation decided to act using one of the privacy, vulgarity, stalking, chat methods listed above. I think after these actions have been repeated until they are abused it becomes an issue of griefing. Which can become harmful to residents and perhaps might be a reason for someone to leave our community all together. I'm not against open discussions, just against harassment in all forms.

I'm also not 100% happy with the nudity portion, partly because i think it's funny and fun to attempt from time to time, but I'm willing to accept it if the population approves, for everyone's better interest and to help create a social standard that's mutually respectful.

[Trebor Warcliffe]

I dont have the applicable paperwork in front of me and I dont want to get into one of my infamously long-winded posts but isn't the crux of what josjos is proposing already a part of the CDS Code of Laws or another government legislation? It may not be worded like josjos has worded it but the meat of it is essentially there I think. Hmmm this may be my shortest post yet.

Trebor

[Beathan]

Is this responding to a specific problem or series of problems, or is it merely a solution in search of (or anticipation of) a problem?

If the latter, I am wary. This would essentially be implementation of an entire criminal code -- and one that piggy-backs on top of (and therefore is either redundant with or more restrictive than) the LL Code of Conduct. If not necessary to respond to a growing tide of "dishonorable" behavior by citizens, I would not support in principle.

However, even if necessary, this legislation leaves the procedural mechanics out -- and that is scary. (Pip has an extremely valid point here.) How, and by whom, are reports of dishonorable conduct received? Who investigates them? How are they prosecuted? What is the penalty? How is the penalty imposed (what due process is given to the accused, to the accuser, to the community)? When is the penalty imposed (is there some pre-judicial loss or rights, liberty, or citizenship)? Is there some penalty for false reports to prevent the system from being used for harassment?

Frankly, although I'd hate to dust off the factious debate about the Judiciary, before we implement substantive criminal law, we need to implement a judicial procedure that ensures due process and respect for the rights of citizens in the enforcement of any such law. In other words -- get the process right before running citizens through it if you don't want CDS government to be Kafkaesque.

[josjoha]

Hi Beathans & Pip & Bells & Warcliffe,

It is my opinion that the CDS democracy is not properly structured if it has no clear Judiciary. To have a judiciary is a fundamental debate outside the scope of this particular law, in my opinion. Charges of this being Kafkaesque I find that Kafkaeque itself ! haha, beat that ! : ), lol.

TY Bells ! Warcliffe, it keeps the law in the perview of the CDS, to officially act within its state system rather then grapling towards 'unnatural' systems like the LL 'gods' ?

best regards,
jos

[Cindy Ecksol]

All I can say is that I don't think I'm interested in being a part of any community that feels it needs a law like this one. The current CDS code and its methods of dealing with violations is enough for me.

Cindy

[Pip Torok]

Hi Beathans & Pip & Bells & Warcliffe,

It is my opinion that the CDS democracy is not properly structured if it has no clear Judiciary. To have a judiciary is a fundamental debate outside the scope of this particular law, in my opinion. Charges of this being Kafkaesque I find that Kafkaeque itself ! haha, beat that ! : ), lol.

TY Bells ! Warcliffe, it keeps the law in the perview of the CDS, to officially act within its state system rather then grapling towards 'unnatural' systems like the LL 'gods' ?

best regards,
jos

Hi josjoha,

I honour any country, any community, that gives people an option to find my own take as "a bit ridiculous", or Beathan's "Kafkaesque" as even more ridiculous.

And you and Bells do take that option. And that's well and good, as it should be.

But I hope you're not implying that it is somehow "over the top". If you do, then "Schindler's List", Erich Fromm's "Fear of Freedom", George Orwell's "Animal Farm", and Kafka's "Metamorphosis" all stand as cautionary correctives. There are, heaven knows, enough millions in both Holland and the United States who could put you right, if you so choose.

And you can choose. And that I honour.

Pip Torok

[Beathan]

Jos,

As a survivor of the last Judiciary debate, I am loathe to go down that path unless we absolutely need to. If you want to see why -- go look back at the old forum posts.

The CDS is a small community. It is growing and has grown, but is not yet so big that we need legal constraints beyond the minimal ones we have right now. Social constraints still work here -- and probably will for some time yet.

That said, I am sympathetic to your desire for a judiciary. I just think that you are approaching it backwards. You are proposing substantive law with no clear mechanism for enforcement or procedure. Such a law would either be useless (because it could not be enforced without an enforcement procedure) or arbitrary (because it would be enforced on the fly without any guidance of a formal and thought-out enforcement procedure).

The better approach is to develop the enforcement procedure first -- and do so deliberately so that it protects the rights of the citizens -- and then add substantive law as needed to address specific misbehavior that requires some formal response. I would be happy to have this discussion with you and to help draft such legislation, although I worry that it is both unnecessary and unnecessarily divisive.

With regard to my statement that it is Kafkaesque -- substantive law administered through an ad hoc or arbitrary procedure is the very definition of Kafkaesque. In Kafka's "The Trial" -- the problem was not that the accused was not accused of something (it was very clear that the State alleged some violation of some substantive law). The problem was a lack of due process -- at least insofar as the accused never being told what he was accused of and therefore completely denied the ability to defend himself. I'm not suggesting that your law would be enforced in such an extremely bad way -- but I know (as a lawyer irl) that bad process makes a shambles of even the best-intentioned and best-conceived substantive law, that substantive law is easy (we generally know how we and others ought to behave), that process is hard (especially getting it right), and that, therefore, a person aiming to create a legal system should focus on getting the process right and letting the substance take care of itself as the need arises.

Get your process down before running citizens through it by imposing substantive law on them.

Beathan

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Beathan,

Thank you for your knowledge concerning this topic. If one does some research they will find that not only has this been a debate in the CDS but also in Second Life in general back in the early years. To the best of my knowledge there is no true Judiciary system active in any Second Life community and that right there should tell you it is just not feasable.

[Beathan]

Beathan,

Thank you for your knowledge concerning this topic. If one does some research they will find that not only has this been a debate in the CDS but also in Second Life in general back in the early years. To the best of my knowledge there is no true Judiciary system active in any Second Life community and that right there should tell you it is just not feasable.

I wouldn't quite go that far. There are some quasi-judicial activities that occur in Second Life (experiments with mediation and arbitration) that have been successful in resolving disputes. There is also banning by estate owners -- which acts like a medieval criminal justice system in SL regions, which might qualify as well. Finally, there is RL Linden Labs arbitration of disputes related to the game itself.

I think that a judicial system is feasible -- the issue is need and scale. Small communities don't need complicated judicial systems. My RL experience with Tribal Court Systems on American Native Reservations shows how much can be done through social control and a person-centric simplified procedure -- and almost all SL communities are smaller than the Tribes I have worked with.

That said, there are gaps in dispute resolution -- especially on the mainland -- and TOS reports are a dubious and uncertain method for resolving them. Those issues, however, are different than the CDS issues.

By the way -- this is a link to an American Bar Ass'n Journal Article about the last time we went down this road --

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/arti ... _real_law/

[Soro Dagostino]

Well I wrote a long note about the past. Lost it in the system.

Essentially I post to echo Beathan's statements about the system of justice in CDS. I troubled over the issue in my early time in CDS, but now believe, like Beathan, that it isn't a necessity in CDS. The SC can serve as a hearing board and provides a place where people can vent and claim breach of the laws.

What we may be interested in is advent of the "SL People's Court" that has been recruiting RL lawyers to serve as hearing officers in a Arbitration system with written rulings available to the public. Yes, it is a "public/private" system for adjudication of issues, but it seems to be catching on.

I have seen the results of LL's administrative TOR enforcement, policing and interpretation, first hand, and have watched the use of the Estate Court convened by an Estate Owner to decide arguments between Estate tenants. Neither system is voluntary and it is imposed by "authority." The "People's Court system is by and large a consensual system. It seems to work.

Cheers!

Soro.

[Bells Semyorka]

I've been trying to find more information about what is currently in place at CDS for our CDS code, but am having a hard time finding it. If it's clearly marked then I'm having a hard time understanding it. I would appreciate a tenured individual to provide a link to it so I can read and attempt to educate myself on what our current procedure is.

Bethan and Soren and Trebour thank you for explaining the fact that we don't have a judicial system in place. I understand concerns about corrective actions that might occur without a judicial system in place. Thank you so much for providing useful information and relating it to our small growing community within SL.

However, I still think it's a good idea to have a code in place in regards to the treatment of one another even if we are a small community.
The Girl Scouts of America for example, has a two promises that it's members try to adhere to, The Girl Scout Law and The Girl Scout promise.
http://www.girlscouts.org/program/gs_ce ... omise_law/
to my knowledge they don't have a judiciary system in place, but rather they try to ensure that their members understand this law and follow it. They recite it before every meeting to help enforce the promise the girls made to one another and themselves. perhaps instead of a law we say it's a pledge that our citizens make to one another. Something to add to a "Welcome basket" for new citizens of CDS.

[Sudane Erato]

By the way -- this is a link to an American Bar Ass'n Journal Article about the last time we went down this road --

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/arti ... _real_law/

... I was entertained by a quote in this article:

"Neufreistadt, Cushman’s Second Life community, was set up by political science professors interested in trying out ideas. The virtual city has its own constitution and legal code."

We might only wish... things may have been more coherent. In fact, the concept was devised and promulgated by a medical science scholar, assisted by an actor. Members of the founding group were a computer systems administrator, a computer games designer, a traditional media professional, and at least two people surviving on their countries' social welfare net. A number more had RL professions unknown to me at least.

Certainly the CDS has attracted an extraordinary number of legal and political science professionals. We are in many legal minds an extremely interesting example of the extension of human affairs... my RL attorney always enjoys referring me to commentary about issues of law in virtual worlds in legal journals such as Beathan has noted.

But, no... the real story of the birth is much more intriguing than political science professors trying out ideas. Much as I disagreed with Ulrika Zugzwang (and that disagreement was extreme and intense) she must be honored for conceiving and drafting the original framework of our institution. It was she who defined the 3 original branches of our system; Assembly, Guild and Scientific Council, as well as the "factional" system of representation. While we have altered much of this original vision, it still stands as one of the most fascinating events in virtual world history.

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