Bill proposals: Citizenship and Electoral Reform

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

It was hard for me to shed some light on the confusion of the current, ongoing elections, mostly because so much of it was shrouded in rumour and private communications/notecards/emails; while official statements were sparse and incomplete, and often told a different story. My whole purpose of stirring up the community was to force some people to come up with public statements about their view of the issue, support their views, argue with others, accept or contradict opinions, and so forth, in order to come up with some solutions — that's participative open debate, another of the many pillars of democracy

So, taking into account a lot of things that were publicly said, it's now a bit clearer for me that any "solution" to this problem requires cutting at the root: addressing the citizenship validation before elections start. And for an insight on what has to be done, I'm forever grateful to Sudane's clarification. To quote her on the crucial issue here:

The citizenship qualification laws are a mass of contradictions, exacerbated in this cycle by the incorrect qualification dates posted by one of our esteemed citizens.

She continues explaining that a lot of the procedures happening quietly on the backstage are mostly traditional and not clearly set on legislation. This also explains, for example, why Tor can legitimately claim that the Executive is not bound to make sure the voting booths are out in time.

Roughly speaking, I think that we can resume the issues to roughly the following key points:

• Who is a citizen?

• Who is allowed to vote?

• Who is allowed to get elected?

• Who validates all the above?

• What are the dates related to the election process?

• Who oversees the technical implementation of the voting system?

• Who oversees the procedures during election, and how are they overseen? (i.e. nomination for candidacy; campaigning; actual election process)?

• Who announces the results (i.e. validating the election results and confirm that they're correct?

• How (and when) are irregularities identified and corrected?

I think it can be helpful at this stage to look for similes in the real world, where obviously all those points require to be addressed. To simplify the issue, I'm not going to use a real country as an analogy, but merely an association (say, a not-for-profit) with members who elect their own Board of Directors, and where each and every member has both a vote and the right to get elected.

In that scenario,

• There is a membership list, maintained by a secretary or similar function in the organisation.

• In order to vote or get elected, members have to pay their membership fees and owe nothing to the organisation. A treasurer usually keeps a record of who has paid the fees and who has not.

• One of the official organs of the organisation will have the task to set the dates for the next election, notify members to accept candidacies, and validate the procedure. Depending on the organisation, this task might be set up by a General Assembly of all members, the Board itself, or a special Election Committee (I have at least seen all those possible solutions). Sometimes the whole procedure is simply a routine, set up in the Charter, and a secretary just goes through the list.

• When voting, members are usually validated simply by checking marks on a "member roll" which reflects their current status. On Internet-based organisations, of course, this is far easier to do: either you have a login/password which allow you to vote, or you haven't (meaning that you owe the organisation some fees; your membership was not accepted; or you have been expelled as a member.

• Irregularities can be dealt with either by the Board or the General Assembly, usually by petition or similar mechanism. In general, however, for small organisations there will be few irregularities — mostly related to someone who did, indeed, pay their fees but for some reason wasn't listed by the treasurer or the secretary on the member roll.

This seems pretty straightforward to me.

Now part of the mess comes from being very, very hard to know who is a citizen and who isn't; and among the valid citizens, who have a right to vote and get elected, and who haven't either (or both) of those rights. Originally, of course, things were pretty easy: if you owned land in the CDS and were not delinquent in paying the monthly fees related to the land ownership, then you could vote and get elected.

At some stage, however, we hopelessly confused everything by noting that some citizens didn't actually own land, but their group did own land on their behalf. And thanks to that "loophole", it was pretty easy to add cartloads of new group members (some being alts, some being genuinely different people), none of which would pay a single cent to the CDS treasury, but all of theme earning the right to vote and get elected. This pushed us to create the 28-day-rule and complicate the CDS citizenship to the point that we came up with the complex and almost-impossible-to-read CDSL 13-10 Citizenship Bill.

Furthermore, at some stage, the RA simply set the dates of the next elections, based on a complex mathematical formula expressed on the Constitution. Since originally there was just one election day, the formula was not hard to figure out. But the many laws around the formula calculations and the citizenship requirements diverged over the years, as they were independently addressed, and this means that it became harder and harder to interpret; several commissions dealt with the issue in the past and proposed increasingly more complex solutions to make sure that the legislation was more inclusive, didn't discriminate among the many different "types" of citizens, and was more reliable and less prone to discussion about dates and requirements. This is why, for instance, the description of the procedures for electing a Chancellor are easier to read and simpler to follow.

Nevertheless, while we start having a glimpse about a clear way to define dates, the whole procedure in itself has several stages, some technical, some administrative, and some of overseeing. Those roles are implied but not codified in law; or, when they are, they are often ambiguous.

So in an attempt to clarify the whole procedure, I propose the following three bills. The first is to supersede CDSL 13-10:

Bill #1: Citizenship Establishment

Preamble

CDSL 13-10, Citizenship Bill, attempted to define more precisely the link between citizenship and land established as a fundamental principle in the Constitution of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) in its Article VI – Citizenship, by establishing guidelines on how to incorporate the citizenship grant made to citizens who used previous laws to become citizens without a direct relationship with land ownership.

However, in subsequent events, it was made clear that the extraordinary amount of legislation covering all possible cases for citizenship complicated the establishment of an official List of Citizens as per the requirements of NL 5-15, Citizen Information Act. As a result, this list is rarely updated and requires individual validation of each and every member on the list.

Therefore, this bill provides a new and easier method to validate citizenship by keeping to the guidelines set forth in the Constitution.

1. "Granting title to land" is henceforward defined as being listed as the sole proprietor of a parcel of land, as shown by the About Land tool (or whatever technological feature of the official Second Life Viewer shows the ownership of a parcel).
2. Citizens have full rights and duties at the moment the land sale for their first parcel owned in the CDS is completed.
3. Citizens have limited rights — but full duties — if they default on payments. Specifically, the right to vote and to be elected is temporarily suspended until proof of non-delinquency is confirmed by the Treasury.
4. Private land can optionally be set (but not deeded) to any group, but that does not entitle any member of the group a grant to the title of the land. Mistakenly deeded land should be reverted, optionally with the assistance from the Estate Owner or any similar role with the appropriate land management powers.
5. Public land, or land owned by organisations incorporated in the CDS, can be deeded to a group. As per the previous article, this does not grant members of the group any title to the land.
6. "Sponsored locations" in the terms previously defined under CDSL 13-10 are abolished. Land set or deeded to groups under the provision of CDSL 13-10 will revert to public land status and claimed by the appropriate land management group set by Government for the region.
7. Membership in any "waiting list" for acquisition of a first parcel in the CDS, to be sold by Government as soon as new regions or parcels are opened for sale, does not confer citizenship status to those members, since it does not effectively confer grant title to land, but only manifests the intention of such entitlement.
8. Citizenship status is deemed to be active as long as monthly tier fees are fully paid, according to the principles established elsewhere (see also NL 7-6, Land Sale Reform Act).
9. Any citizen that loses their citizenship status due to the revocation of CDSL 13-10, on the date this bill is ratified by the Scientific Council is encouraged to purchase a parcel of land in the CDS and shall be entitled to a waiver of the land ownership/transfer cost, only in the case that the parcel bought is the property of the CDS Government, and only for the first parcel purchased under this provision.
10. Citizens losing their status due to the revocation of CDSL 13-10, when buying their first parcel of land in the CDS, will have priority in applying for any paid Civil Service role (under the provision of NL 5-7, Civil Service Act, and subsequent legislation and regulamentation), in case any such new role is announced or an existing role has a vacancy, provided that the candidate has the adequate competences and skills required to apply for that role.
11. The Executive, and more specifically the Estate Owner or any equivalent Civil Service role responsible for complying with NL 5-15, will endeavour to keep the Citizen List up to date, as per the requirements in NL 5-15, by automating the process as much as possible.

Bill #2: Citizenship membership publication for election purposes

Preamble

In previous terms, the risk of a large amount of Second Life residents suddenly acquiring title to a land in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) in order to swing the vote towards a candidate, and immediately abandoning their title to the land afterwards, encouraged legislators to establish a rule that only citizens which held the title to their land for over 28 days were allowed to vote and be elected. However, due to the complexities of the electoral calendar, the validation of that requirement was unnecessarily complicated.

Similarly, NL 5-15, Citizen Information Act, was a mechanism to adequately provide citizens and the election overseeing agencies (namely, the Scientific Council) with a way to publicly validate any resident claims to a title to land in the CDS, and therefore being a full citizen. Such a list has traditionally been hard to obtain, even though NL 9-3, Land Sales Listing Improvement Act, improves upon it.

Since NL 5-15 mandates that the list is published at least once every month, this bill mandates the following:

1. The Citizen List shall be published by the CDS Executive Branch, through either an automated system under the responsibility of the Estate Owner or such similar role with equivalent administrative and technical powers, one week before the last day for candidates to announce themselves for an upcoming election, through the mechanisms stipulated in NL 5-15, NL 9-3 (3 a), or any subsequent legislation which establishes alternative methods.
2. The Citizen List shall contain the avatar names of all citizens holding a title to land in the CDS and therefore entitled to vote and be elected, and that are not delinquent in the payment of their land fees. Optionally, and as per the Executive Branch discretion, a list of the delinquent citizens may be presented to the other Government branches upon request.
3. Nobody outside the published list shall be entitled either to vote of to be elected in an upcoming election, subject to appeals to the Scientific Council (in the case of list compilation mistakes or unaccounted payments made in time).
4. This bill revokes the need for citizens to have been granted title to land in the CDS for 28 days before they are allowed to vote or be elected.
5. This bill applies to all elections and by-elections of Government members, representatives, or any official polling act called by any of the Government Branches (such as referenda or public consultation) that may have legislative power.
6. This bill does not revoke any other right of citizens, specifically NL 5-21, Citizen Involvement Act, or any public contest without the force of legislative power, such as proposing a new theme for an upcoming region to be publicly opened, redesigning the CDS official presence, or similar non-legislative acts.

Bill #3: Election calendar and election responsibilities

Preamble

Calculation of the election dates and administrative procedures before an election has taken place has been a source of conflict, as different legislation apply different criteria, often requiring a pronouncement of the Scientific Council to clarify the procedure. Past Election Commissions have attempted to uniformize the language and clarify the procedures, but in several cases, proposals have failed to pass, keeping ambiguous and often contradictory definitions in place which require clarification on each election.

Similarly, in some cases, the legislation is not clear about which Government Branch is responsible for each of the many steps during the election calendar.

This bill proposes an uniform method for establishing the election calendar for any voting act in the CDS and to delegate responsibilities.

1. The election calendar shall henceforward be the following:
Four weeks before Election Day - Publishing of the Citizen List with valid citizens that can be nominated as candidates and vote in the upcoming elections, as established by [insert Bill #1 number]
Three weeks before Election Day - End of candidacy period.
Three weeks before Election Day plus one day - Scientific Council publishes List of Candidates for the upcoming elections. Appeals can be made to the Scientific Council, which is mandated to answer to them until campaigning begins.
Two weeks before Election Day - Campaigning begins
One week before Election Day - Executive Branch places voting booths on the designated Election Points (one per region). Voting system is configured with the Citizen List and the List of Candidates. Scientific Council replies to any complaints regarding the campaigning.
Election Day - Voting booths close. The system is configured not to allow any more citizens to vote.
Election Day plus one day - Scientific Council announces election results. Booths are removed from the Election Points by the Executive Branch. Scientific Council accepts appeals to the results and is mandated to answer them until the Beginning of Term.
Election Day plus one week - Newly elected candidates, as validated by the Scientific Council, are administered the oath of upholding the Constitution and Code of Laws of the CDS.
2. Terms for the Representative Assembly and Executive, Election Day, Beginning of Term, and precise hours of opening and closing the booths for voting are established by the Constitution and other applicable legislation. Terms otherwise unspecified (such as by-elections) shall take the above election calendar deadlines into account.
3. "Election Day" is defined as the last day of the election period when the booths close, using the timezone shown by the Second Life Viewer (currently Pacific Standard Time or Pacific Daylight Savings Time).
4. This bill applies to all elections and by-elections of Government members, representatives, or any official polling act called by any of the Government Branches (such as referenda or public consultation) that may have legislative power. Other polling acts (e.g. voting on a region theme) may optionally follow the same calendar guidelines to provide consistency across the CDS.
5. Placement of the voting booths (or similar devices for polls) and overseeing the campaigning billboards or similar signs is the responsibility of the Executive Branch (even for Executive elections and by-elections).
6. Overseeing the conformity to all applicable legislation, including, but not limited to, Citizenship membership publication ([insert bill #1 number here]), campaigning (CDSL 13-09, Campaigning Act), the election calendar (this bill), and the voting procedures is the sole responsibility of the Scientific Council, which is also mandated to reply to any appeals and requests for clarification within the time limits established by the calendar.

===

Please comment and make suggestions. Obviously, the three bills are meant to be approved together... or else we will fall back to a similar situation as before, where partial legislation approvals sadly left inaccuracies and contradictions in the legislative texts.

[Patroklus Murakami]

We should definitely work on this. Our citizenship rules are insanely complex and have been ever since we passed the misguided Group Citizenship Act.

Let's keep it simple: one avatar : one plot : one vote.

[Beathan]

We should definitely work on this. Our citizenship rules are insanely complex and have been ever since we passed the misguided Group Citizenship Act.

Let's keep it simple: one avatar : one plot : one vote.

I agree, we should work on this -- and Gwyn's proposal is a great basis. However, Pat, your rule is not actually that simple, as we see in the current situation -- there is a complexity as to relevant date for ownership. I personally would prefer 28 days prior to the end of the election, rather than the start, because that would mean that a person would be able to vote no later than 28 days after buying a plot.

I also think that some group citizenship rights are useful -- but groups that allow for such rights should be specially chartered by the RA and should provide a financial or other contribution, on a per-avatar basis, to the CDS that is comparable to plot ownership.

Finally, I don't think we should abolish the domestic partner rule for citizenship and require partners to each own land -- although perhaps we should have a domestic partner surcharge.

Beathan

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

If you notice carefully, I've suggested a very devious and tricky change so that:
- the 28-day-rule is dropped
- a new mechanism which does the same thing is introduced
- the spirit of "one citizen, (at least) one plot", as suggested by Pat, is reinforced

Namely, all citizens are immediately citizens as soon as they buy they first plot. However, four weeks before the Election Day, the citizen roll call — the Citizen List — is published. It's based on that list and no other mechanism that the eligibility of citizens to vote and get elected is determined.

So any new citizen that buys plots after this Citizen List is published simply cannot vote or get elected. They're still valid citizens, of course, they simply don't get to participate in the elections as voters or as candidates.

This makes everything much, much simpler, and keeps in line with the spirit of not allowing lots of citizens to pop up at the voting booth and swing an election. Very simply put, since this list is public, anyone can see, one month before the election, if they're allowed to vote or not. If they have some doubts, they can just check the list and see if they can participate in the election. If they disagree with the list for some reason (e.g. they have bought a plot before the list was published but their name is not on the list), they can appeal to the Scientific Council, and there is a week to sort out the issue. It's simple.

It also allows the person responsible for the voting system (currently Jon Seattle) to have the complete list at least one week before the booths are put in place, and often even two weeks before (if there are no complaints about the published Citizen List or the list of candidates). This should also diminish the need for postponing the elections because the lists were not compiled in time and the voting server was not ready.

BTW, I forgot one very, very importance sentence on my proposed BIll #2. Insert after point 4.,

5. This bill revokes NL 5-17, Census Scheduling Act. The number of seats in the Representative Assembly shall be calculated on the day the Citizen List is published for the express purpose of determining citizen eligibility.

and renumber the rest accordingly.

Remember that 5-17 had the nasty side-effect that Jon had to configure the voting system at the last possible moment, since the number of seats could change during the campaigning, and it would always be a big surprise for everyone to figure out how many seats were available for the RA — you would only know when the booths opened! Not a good idea.

[Sudane Erato]

Therefore, this bill provides a new and easier method to validate citizenship by keeping to the guidelines set forth in the Constitution.

1. "Granting title to land" is henceforward defined as being listed as the sole proprietor of a parcel of land, as shown by the About Land tool (or whatever technological feature of the official Second Life Viewer shows the ownership of a parcel).
2. Citizens have full rights and duties at the moment the land sale for their first parcel owned in the CDS is completed.
3. Citizens have limited rights — but full duties — if they default on payments. Specifically, the right to vote and to be elected is temporarily suspended until proof of non-delinquency is confirmed by the Treasury.
4. Private land can optionally be set (but not deeded) to any group, but that does not entitle any member of the group a grant to the title of the land. Mistakenly deeded land should be reverted, optionally with the assistance from the Estate Owner or any similar role with the appropriate land management powers.
5. Public land, or land owned by organisations incorporated in the CDS, can be deeded to a group. As per the previous article, this does not grant members of the group any title to the land.
6. "Sponsored locations" in the terms previously defined under CDSL 13-10 are abolished. Land set or deeded to groups under the provision of CDSL 13-10 will revert to public land status and claimed by the appropriate land management group set by Government for the region.
7. Membership in any "waiting list" for acquisition of a first parcel in the CDS, to be sold by Government as soon as new regions or parcels are opened for sale, does not confer citizenship status to those members, since it does not effectively confer grant title to land, but only manifests the intention of such entitlement.
8. Citizenship status is deemed to be active as long as monthly tier fees are fully paid, according to the principles established elsewhere (see also NL 7-6, Land Sale Reform Act).
9. Any citizen that loses their citizenship status due to the revocation of CDSL 13-10, on the date this bill is ratified by the Scientific Council is encouraged to purchase a parcel of land in the CDS and shall be entitled to a waiver of the land ownership/transfer cost, only in the case that the parcel bought is the property of the CDS Government, and only for the first parcel purchased under this provision.
10. Citizens losing their status due to the revocation of CDSL 13-10, when buying their first parcel of land in the CDS, will have priority in applying for any paid Civil Service role (under the provision of NL 5-7, Civil Service Act, and subsequent legislation and regulamentation), in case any such new role is announced or an existing role has a vacancy, provided that the candidate has the adequate competences and skills required to apply for that role.
11. The Executive, and more specifically the Estate Owner or any equivalent Civil Service role responsible for complying with NL 5-15, will endeavour to keep the Citizen List up to date, as per the requirements in NL 5-15, by automating the process as much as possible.

Interesting. But, sadly, still with many many procedural loopholes and administrative quandaries. The breakdown into 3 bills is very useful and functional, and in my current role as EO and Treasurer I'm going to confine myself to working on just this first one. I devoutly pray that we can achieve the goal of simplicity and clarity... we have a very tough job ahead. I'll take things bit by bit... but please note... focusing on the interrelationship of the various clauses.

1. "Granting title to land" is henceforward defined as being listed as the sole proprietor of a parcel of land, as shown by the About Land tool (or whatever technological feature of the official Second Life Viewer shows the ownership of a parcel).
4. Private land can optionally be set (but not deeded) to any group, but that does not entitle any member of the group a grant to the title of the land. Mistakenly deeded land should be reverted, optionally with the assistance from the Estate Owner or any similar role with the appropriate land management powers.

"Set to Group" vs. "Deeded to Group" is a subject of HUGE misunderstanding in SL, and rightly so... the designers created unbelievably complex land ownership rights situation. The bottom line is that imposing the restriction of #4 on #1 is not going to be acceptable to the general citizenry.

If I own land and "Set to Group" my land, this means that other members of my group will have limited privileges relating to that land. They can "Set Home" to that land. If I uncheck the "All" options on the Options tab of About Land, they can perform those functions which are allowed on that tab to group members. And probably most important, if I set auto-return on my parcel, objects which they rez will not be autoreturned (if they make certain that the object itself is set to that group).

But NONE of the other privileges of land ownership are available to members of that group. These privileges are listed on the group page under Roles/Abilities. As much as I (as an administrator) would LOVE to see this restriction imposed, prohibiting citizens from deeding their land to their group for the purpose of enabling other group members share these privileges will probably not pass the "this is the way things are done in SL" test.

2. Citizens have full rights and duties at the moment the land sale for their first parcel owned in the CDS is completed.
8. Citizenship status is deemed to be active as long as monthly tier fees are fully paid, according to the principles established elsewhere (see also NL 7-6, Land Sale Reform Act).

The heart of the "ownership/tier payer" issue is here. The problem is that there is no fundamental connection between "ownership" of a parcel and the status "tier fees are fully paid", except as we manually impose such a connection. A parcel is owned by an individual until that individual sells it, abandons it, or has it repossessed by the EO (and only the EO). They might never pay a penny of tier... or they might pay tier on alternate months... or any other pattern of payment... and none of that will affect their parcel ownership, except as we manually connect the two.

Let's make 2 assumptions. (1), that #4 is approved (which I doubt will happen). (2), that we use the Hippo system currently being tested for tier collection.

A person might buy a parcel, and then through ignorance or intent, not pay the tier to the box. Alternately, a previous owner might have paid tier to that box which is still in force. We assume that the intent of #8 is to say that tier must be fully paid "by the owner of the parcel". In the case that no tier was paid into the box, does that make the owner of the parcel a citizen but "not deemed to be active"? And in the case that the tier was paid by the seller, is the new owner "deemed to be active" despite never having paid tier to the box (and not actually even being able to until a Hippo box manager comes along and reassigns the box to the new owner)?

Imposing #4 also ends the possibility that a partner can be a citizen, unless that partner owns their own separate parcel. In other words, their are no "partnership rights" such as might be found in a comparative RL situation. While it is totally true that the "Group Membership" statute is a disaster to administer, we might shift to a "Partnership provision". Here again, we confront the ownership/tier payer issue. While there is no partnership provision in the SL land ownership system, there is such a provision in the HIPPO payment system. Partners are listed equally with owners in the Hippo logs (although partners can be ejected only, while ejecting an owner ejects both the owner and the partner). Partners are enabled to pay tier to the box, just as the owner is. But, of course, if citizenship is based on actually making payments, we have no clear system that both owner and partner have made payments.

Many of the issues here MIGHT be solved by a system of manual intervention. That's OK, I guess, if you have administrators who are available to intervene at more or less all times. But if there is a delay in their manual intervention, then what? How is the privilege of citizenship altered by the inability of the administrator to immediately emplace the tools needed for the citizen's right to be affected?

*sigh*... I'm game... but this is going to be a long process trying to find a solution...

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

[Bromo Ivory]

Many of the issues here MIGHT be solved by a system of manual intervention. That's OK, I guess, if you have administrators who are available to intervene at more or less all times. But if there is a delay in their manual intervention, then what? How is the privilege of citizenship altered by the inability of the administrator to immediately emplace the tools needed for the citizen's right to be affected?

Upshot would be the administrators by delay, could disenfranchise a citizen right before an election. Say if a citizen were to buy a new parcel, and by the 28 day mark wasn't "paid up" because the administrator couldn't or wouldn't reset the box, set up tier box, etc.

Nope ... that would be a bad thing.

Wouldn't it be easier just to repeal the group ownership law?

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Just a simple note/suggestion. With Hippo, which we are slowly implementing into the CDS, I'm still waiting to hear from our tons of volunteers waiting to pitch in and help out with the picture taking and cataloging of individual landmarks, one owner and one partner are permitted. I like this a lot and here's why. We don't have "groups" of people obtaining citizenship just by being listed as a "Group Member" on someone's About Land Tab. With Hippo we can accomplish two things. We can limit "Groups" as far as the issues of land ownership and citizens eligible to vote, to two individuals. For the second citizen we can add the L$250 that we currently require non-landowning citizens to pay, right into the Hippo system so both the owner of the parcel and the partner of the owner are both eligible to vote and hold office due to both being considered a citizen.

Thank you,
Trebor

[Sudane Erato]

For the second citizen we can add the L$250 that we currently require non-landowning citizens to pay, right into the Hippo system so both the owner of the parcel and the partner of the owner are both eligible to vote and hold office due to both being considered a citizen.

Do you mean that if an owner adds a "partner" to the Hippo box, one of us workers goes in and changes their tier by adding L$250 to the monthly amount? I don't think that's workable, but that's the only way I can see implementing what you propose. And even if we do that, we have no idea whether both citizens pay... it could be either one at any particular time. And, of course, they can still only pay for one month increments.

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

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Sudane,

Yes it is only a simple calculation that would need to be performed. Here's an example, Alpine Meadow US$ 6.50 per 512sqm, current exchange rate of 250 makes this amount L$1,625 tier. To add a partner to the parcel I bump the tier in lindens from 1,625 to 1,875 which translates back to US$ 7.50 per 512sqm for an owner/citizen and their partner/citizen. In response to your concern of not knowing "whether both citizens pay... it could be either one at any particular time" that is true but look at it this way. A partnership in this situation is two individuals, a couple, regardless of sex. In reallife couples often pay their bills out of one account. One partner may be a homemaker while the other is the breadwinner. I feel in the CDS with a partnership set up through the Hippo system like I'm proposing it doesn't need to be a separate issue, as long as tier is paid both owner and their partner is are citizens.

I'm assuming your other concern is owners taking on partners for whatever reason (elections) and than these "partners" disappearing after the event that brought them here. That may not be something we can prevent ahead of time but we certainly can look at patterns for this type of behavior and address the concern accordingly. I would certainly hope that wouldn't be an issue and would like to give our citizens the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you,
Trebor

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Hi Sudane,

Thanks for the thorough explanation... I see that much comes from my ignorance of the HIPPO system, and I wrongly assumed it was a much easier and straightforward method to validate who has paid for what parcel. I'm not very fond of the "this is the way it's done in SL" argument; I believe I own just four parcels in SL, and each has a completely different system for validating that I'm the owner (none use HIPPO, btw). Surprisingly, it's the non-HIPPO parcel that is for me the easiest to use — and yes, that's my NFS plot Granted, I might be incredibly exceptional and unlucky to be an edge case, and arguing from edge cases — not the mainstream case — is always a bad idea, so I stand corrected.

My proposal deliberately forbade partners, group members, slaves, children, alts, or pets to be citizens just because the person listed on the land is a citizen. This is a deliberate attempt to exclude them all from being citizens in the CDS. They can still enjoy the benefits of having fun in the CDS, and — group membership permitting — to build things in someone else's land. But only that "someone else" is allowed to vote and get elected: that was the point.

I'm sorry, I fail to understand the issue about the limitations of land set to group and deeded to group. If the intention is giving a "friend" (or spouse, or alt, or whatever) the permission to build on that land, then there is no problem in just having the land set to group. I believe you're alluding to the fact that setting the parcel's music or video stream requires the land to be deeded to the group. Well, there are trillions of objects that allow doing that, without the land being deeded to the group. What other abilities are *crucial* for land group members to have that require the land being deeded to the group?

I might understand that in some cases, group members — other than the original owner — might sell the land on behalf of the owner, and that would require the land be deeded to group. But that's an extra complication — sales by proxy. Of course it's legal in the real world. And I can imagine that in SL it might be useful. Nevertheless, I consider that to be an exceptional circumstance, and, for that circumstance only, I think that the best is to involve anyone with the proper land management tools to deal with that particular sale. Unless you're trying to tell us that the exception is, in fact, the rule — i.e. all land sales in the CDS are usually done on behalf of the original owner, because the original owner doesn't bother to log in, or something like that. Then it becomes more of a question of habits and convenience (again, "this is how it's done in SL"). Well, this bill would force people to change their habits. If that's the result, then, in my mind, it's a desired result: simplifying things.

Point 8. on the bill is more important and I'm aware it cannot be automated with a single step. It can, however, be automated with two steps: who the land parcel lists as owner, and what the tier payment system lists as paid. I imagine that the HIPPO box will automatically retrieve the first information anyway, so the two steps are combined into one: on the HIPPO backoffice, I'm sure that each parcel is listed with the owner's name (as seen by SL) and what payments have been made and if they're current or not. I'm sorry, I never actually saw the current HIPPO backoffice, but I'm assuming that there is some common sense in how it operates.

I understand the issue that some land might have been paid in advance for several months but the land might have changed ownership in the mean time. Well, I agree: this is not properly handled by the legislation. The only thing that comes to mind is to ask if the HIPPO system allows refunding — in that case, it would be the former owner's duty to ask for a refund after selling the land. I'm sure the HIPPO system can track down how much has to be refunded — after all, it should know when the parcel owner has changed. Can the HIPPO system do an automatic refunding?

If not, I opt for simplification: adding on the bill an extra article for refunding, stating that it's the former owner's duty to require the refunding, within, say, a month, or the extra tier fees will be forfeited. This is not unreasonable to demand. The point is, when land changes ownership as stated by the SL About Land box, the old citizen is not a citizen anymore (if that was the only plot they had), while the new "citizen" is in delinquent status until they pay for their first tier. That's very simple to understand, track down, and enforce. It might not be "how it's done in SL", but, frankly, I care little about that and I'm very sorry to see a few citizens leaving because of that, but to be honest, I worry far less about one or two residents who might be negatively affected by the simplified procedure, than with a huge cartload of valid citizens who did follow procedures but find themselves unable to vote or get elected because it's incredibly hard to validate their status as citizens.

#4 has been deliberately put there. This is not to discriminate partners, friends, slaves, alts, pets or any such relationship. It's to make sure that we adhere to the "one person — (at least) one plot — one vote" philosophy. If a couple hasn't enough money to pay for two plots (or if just one is available), that's too bad, and I feel sorry for them. The alternative in that case would be to buy two smaller plots. But making too many allowances in order to be more inclusive means that, at the end of the day, we will be less and less able to figure out who can vote and who cannot — and this means being less inclusive.

I also understand that the lower inclusivity — restricting full rights and duties to just the citizens owning plots in their avatar's name — will mean that some will leave the CDS, because they will feel discriminated. I'm aware of that! But I still feel this strong conviction that we have been way too worried with edge cases, instead of focusing on the issue.

Excluding some obvious and extreme cases, what the "inclusivity rules" currently are saying is: "we're opening up citizenship to residents that are not willing to spend more than a dollar per month in the CDS". While I'm certainly well aware that even one dollar a month can be seen as a high fee to be able to vote and get elected in the CDS, I think we have to draw the limits somewhere in terms of common sense and reason. I have indeed met people (and have even worked with some) who owned little more than a set of clothes and a battered laptop computer, who were homeless and basically logged in to SL by finding free wi-fi spots, and what little money they could earn was spent mostly in eating the least possible that they could afford with a handful of dollars per month. These people exist, and some even became known fashion designers or top scripters in SL.

But they are extremely rare exceptions. Even the "poorest" person that we find in SL will have a computer, power, and an Internet connection. They can most certainly afford one dollar or two per month to become CDS citizens. If they genuinely cannot do so, I proposed (not for the first time!) that they become Civil Servants instead: donating their time to work on behalf of the citizens, getting paid L$1000/month, and paying their tier out of their salaries. You might argue that there are not many Civil Servant roles in the CDS; I argue that there are more than enough for any prospective citizen who genuinely has no other means of income to be able to pay for tier.

This is not limited to SL, of course, but in this era, everything related to technology tends to become obsessed with the edge cases (I believe I've written an essay or two about that). In the name of inclusivity and non-discrimination, we go through pains to adapt legislation and give opportunities to such a tiny fringe population that it simply isn't worth the trouble. The CDS was certainly contaminated with that attitude as well. It's "normal", because it's a mainstream trend. So we have an incredibly complex way to allow an ever-increasing amount of people to become citizens under "special" rules which become next-to-impossible to track down.

I propose to abolish all those rules, even if as a consequence, a few citizens will leave — mostly in disgust, not because they cannot afford to, but because they don't wish to.

The other problem is a bit harder to deal with. You know that I have a technological background. And so, like many, I have spent many years getting used to the idea that we can only do what technology allows us to do. This is a typical fallacy, but one that is very hard to shake loose. In fact, it should work the other way round: we should use technology that allows us to do what we want to do. That is, if the technology limits us, we should drop the technology and find something that works.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with the tools that Linden Lab gives us. So if there is no way to deal with some of the requirements set up in the proposed bills, we will sadly have to exclude them, and find a workaround. On the other hand, I'm not really very sensitive to the argument "HIPPO doesn't allow it" — then we should use something else that works for *us*. I'm even less sensitive to "the way things work in SL". The CDS is hardly "the way things work in SL" — few communities allow people to vote on the management of the land. Among those who actually do that, few are self-supported (they usually get a sponsor or two to pay for the overall tier costs). This is factual. So my argument for doing things in the CDS in a slightly different way than elsewhere is easily handled with the argument "yes, we know we're different; that's why we have been around for seven years while others haven't". It's blunt, it's tough, it's hard to accept for many, but it's also the truth. We shouldn't be ashamed of being different and successful; I admit I'm proud that we do things differently than "SL at large" and that we can write things on the official CDS portal that say "we are not a role-playing community" — to that we should also add, "we are not a land rental/management community". Instead, we're a different kind of community — one that self-manages all aspects, and which has successfully done so over seven years. If that means that people will need to use objects deeded to group in order to change their parcel music, instead of setting the whole parcel as deeded to group, so be it.

The major problem with dealing with edge cases is that they are not cost-effective. Put into other words: we have to spend an insane amount of time and money to deal with them, in exchange for little return. Edge cases are cost-effective in the case of "long tail" types of sales. If we had millions of citizens, instead of 70 or so, I would obviously agree — those millions, if spending just a handful of L$ here and there, would definitely contribute to the overall payment of costs. But we're not there yet! So it's financially unsound to focus so much time, effort, money, and software to deal with the handful of cases that are not-really-citizens but who, due to the complexities of our legal system, are allowed the same rights as full citizens who simply have a plot in their name and pay tier every month. If we "lose" ten of those edge cases, and become a smaller community, but one that still has 99.99% of the income than before —just ten less voters — and as a result gives far less management/accountancy troubles, well, then this is the kind of compromise I wish to see implemented. Doing otherwise is simply not being rational and financially unsound.

It's also important to understand that in the CDS we have long established what "title to land" means. It means accepting the covenants. It doesn't mean a technical implementation of "ownership" by Linden Lab. Even though there is a strong (unavoidable) overlap between the two areas, because, well, we cannot change the way SL works, the meaning is different. If I buy a plot in the Mainland, I own it in the sense that LL defines ownership, and so long as I don't violate ToS or the Community Standards, I can do whatever I please. In the CDS, ownership of a plot entitles the ability to vote and get elected towards the body that defines its own management rules, but the flip side of the coin is that one has to abide by those very same rules (and the Covenants) which limit the freedom to "do whatever one pleases", in exchange for the right to vote and get elected to the management group. So it's a different kind of "ownership" — one where, voluntarily, some freedom is exchanged for more rights. Not everybody likes that model, and that's why we grow very slowly.

On the other hand, the more we try to compete with common land management communities or role-playing communities, in the hope of attracting more citizens that way — "the CDS is just like the rest of SL, but you get to vote, too!" — the harder it will be to effectively compete with them. Specially in this period, where so many communities have become increasingly more competitive as residents are unwilling to stay around and continue to pay tier, and there is an oversupply of land everywhere. Everywhere but here in the CDS, where growth is so slow that we have waiting lists for plots... not huge waiting lists, but a few. That means that we are, indeed, doing something right, and why should we feel compelled to copy and emulate what "others" are doing — if their communities are shrinking or even collapsing — instead of going ahead with what we are doing, which seems to allow for a tiny growth?

So my reasoning goes. I understand that my bold claims might require bold facts to substantiate them as well. What I propose to ask is that we get a list of all current citizens that don't own (at least) one plot in their name — i.e. they're partners, spouses, group members, live in sponsored locations, and so forth. Then we should list how much income we derive from all those "edge case" citizens and add it up, and compare it in percentage to the remaining mainstream citizens. I think that we will all conclude that they are simply not worth the trouble to have special rules to maintain their citizen status.

I'm also sure that some of them will be viewed as being fundamental to the community, because of what they do on behalf of the CDS, and that we all would be sorry to see them leave if they claim not being allowed to buy a plot. In those cases, I'm sure that we will find them a good job in the Civil Service, which, for L$1000/month, will give them plenty of L$ to pay for tier. If the argument is that we don't have any plots left for "only" L$1000/month, then this is another question to be handled — if we have a lot of citizens willing to pay just L$1000/month, but no plots for them... that surely just encourages the future RA to open a new sim as quickly as possible, right? If we can do that in less than five months, all those citizens will be able to vote and get elected on the next elections, without fuss. In my mind, however, I think that we'll find out that there are far less than that, and that they really have little incentive to work for the CDS instead of paying for tier (or we wouldn't be missing so many unfilled roles in the Civil Service). But I guess that's just me being cynical

In short —
1) Let's list edge cases and see how much they contribute in income, and how much hassle they generate in terms of time and money wasted to support them;
2) Let's have a clear idea of what the HIPPO software can and cannot do, since legislation should not be at the whim of technology within reasonable limits (e.g. we cannot change the way SL works, we can only change the way the CDS works); if HIPPO is found unsuitable for our purposes, we have to look (again) for alternatives;
3) Let's list the kind of "special abilities" that citizens require on their plots which cannot be granted under the current system, or a system where "group-deeded land" is enforced for private parcels, and see which of those "special abilities" can be dealt with using existing scripts (or scripts that can be developed for the same purpose);
4) Let's be clear, once and for all, that the CDS is not "emulating" or even "copying" the way other communities work, but we're imposing our way of working, and it's up to willing citizens to adapt to what we have, not the other way round. This should be the driving guideline; but of course, within reasonable limits (meaning: what technology and available time management constrictions allow), we should have the aim to offer more tools and abilities to prospective citizens. "Reasonable", in this context, should always mean "cost-effective".

[Sudane Erato]

Hehe... a typical "Gwyn answer" which covers the topic exhaustively. And, quite honestly, from a value point of view, I couldn't agree more. If the community can agree to *require" ownership of a parcel (even a very small "symbolic parcel") and *prohibit* deeding to group, so that the citizens name is always listed on the parcel, I could not be happier. And as an administrator, greatly relieved.

But I must throw one bit of cold water on the feasibility problem. You refer a number of times to the Hippo boxes ability to read/know the owner of a parcel. It cannot, and there is no provision for this. The Hippo system is and will remain entirely for tier payment only, with no awareness of who the actual owner is, and whether or not that has changed.

Explanation: The Hippo system is designed primarily as a rental tool. The owner owns all the land, marks off parcels, and rents prims. The tenant can't delete the box because its owned by the owner. The tenant receives all their privileges by being a member of the owner's land group.

The Hippo company promotes the box system as a tool for estate owners as well who plan to sell parcels. But its a kluge. Many critical functions, such as the capabilities that you refer to, are missing. There is simply no connection between the box and the parcel to which it applies.... the only one which is designed into it is the ability to read prim usage on the parcel on which it is located. But since we can't even locate the tier box on the parcel to which it applies (it has to be located just off the parcel because otherwise the parcel owner would routinely delete it), even that capability is unavailable to us (and not needed).

Trebor and I did a lot of research trying to find other land management software more appropriate to our circumstances, to no avail. That's not to say that such software doesn't exist (other than proprietary software such as our old system which is developed especially for one estate). We've just not been able to find it.

Hippo is not a perfect match, but its better than the old system we have in many respects. I know that Trebor and others want to see it implemented estate wide as soon as possible. I continue to drag my heels as administrative issues arise which are problems for us... and we have surely just seen prime examples in the issues happening in this election.

I would be remiss here if I did not mention other proprietary software which has become essential for us. Timo Gufler generously developed our very excellent Land Scanner system, which we simply cannot live without. This is the tool which we rely upon to actually know who owns what, and when such ownership changes. It also logs every change, which is how I was able to retrieve the "date of first ownership" data required by the election rules. It also, btw, enables us to know when land is deeded from an individual to a group.

But, sadly, the Land Scanner has no connection with the Hippo tier payment system. And I will hazard a guess that such an interface would be extremely difficult to create.

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

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

... perhaps in my eagerness to expound my arguments, I should have asked a much simpler question:

Sudane, considering that you are technically "in charge" of all the complexities of land management and sales, what would you find as a desirable replacement for our currently too complex system? Put into other words, if you were responsible for defining citizenship, what would you suggest that we base it upon?

Perhaps this question should have been asked a long time ago! And who knows, perhaps the answer is way, way simpler than trying to "fix" the current system using an "old" mindset...

[Rose Springvale]

I think the real problem comes, and Sudane won't hesitate to correct me if i'm wrong, from trying to tie citizenship to land ownership. I've been trying to think of a way it could be simpler, and maybe it is as easy as making a registered voter system, untied from the land.

Right now, voting privileges in CDS can be purchased for $250 L per month, by sponsoring public land. What if we allocate 250 per month of all parcel tier to voter registration... or somehow have a voter registration fee? Each citizen wishing to vote would need to pay 250 per month for the right. Arguably, some could own land and choose not to register to vote, and some could choose to register without land ownership. We could specify a voter registration day, say the 15th day of the month prior to the election. Every election.. no computations necessary... so it would always be October 15 and May 15. If the avatar has paid that fee by or on that date, they can run for office and vote. If not, they must wait until the next term.

I'd propose, because I've watched Sudane wrestle with this for years, that an Electoral Registration Alt be created, by either appointment by the SC or the RA, or even the Chancellor. HIppo boxes could be used (though NOT the same ones as for tier) to collect funds and route them directly to the treasurer. Hippo can even create the list of avatars. Probably we should not collect the 250 every month, as it seems only fair that if a newcomer can vote by paying 250 on October 15, long time residents should not be asked to pay 6months of the fee.. i.e. 1500 L.

There are problems with the plan, i can see several now, but by using a tier type box though not tied to land we could do three things we don't do now. 1) know clearly and immediately who is eligible to vote and stand for election. 2) Grant equal access to voting to all financial levels and 3) take the nightmare of certification out of the hands of already overworked volunteers.

Then we can get rid of all the laws that deal with group citizenship, partners, election computations...and i'm sure many more. Covenants still apply to the land use and there would be no issues of "lapse" in citizenship.

I am sure this has a number of holes in it, just looking for an answer both easy to explain, and to execute. As of this morning, 250 L is one dollar USD.

[Sudane Erato]

Sudane, considering that you are technically "in charge" of all the complexities of land management and sales, what would you find as a desirable replacement for our currently too complex system? Put into other words, if you were responsible for defining citizenship, what would you suggest that we base it upon?

I appreciate the question, but please let me emphasize that in answering the way you put it, I am answering purely as an administrator. This may bear no resemblance at all to what is a "fair" definition of citizenship and one which is appropriate for an open and democratic community. please understand that. If I were asked what is a fair and appropriate definition of citizenship, I might or might not agree with myself! Not that I would be very good at answering that question anyway.

The way your thoughts are trending in the course of this forum thread is surely what I'd like to see. A citizen owns one or more parcels. That citizen pays tier on that parcel. As administrator, then, I need keep track of only two things which would be the necessary qualifications for citizenship: (1) the citizen owns a parcel, and (2) tier on that parcel is paid. The logic then is: if (1) is true, then it's necessary to determine if (2) is true. If (1) and (2) are true, then the person qualifies. If (1) is false, then the state of (2) doesn't matter.

We don't have currently a single system that can do this. The best tools to date are the afore-mentioned Land Scanner and Hippo system. Both generate logs, and conceivably software could be developed to automate the resolution of the logic above, and attach dates to changes in those states. If we could manage that, and assuming that no better tools are found, I would say that would be my preferred system.

A couple of follow-up Hippo notes to this.

1) Ability to have partner is turned off.
2) Ability to allow payment by proxy is turned off
3) If we allow ability to pre-pay months, which we have assumed because of intense lobbying for this over the years, but which some have pointed out the flaws in, then we must admit the possiblity that an owner could be a qualified citizen while never showing up in SL for months on end. We CAN designate a max pre-pay period if that is desired.
4) As you have noted above, selling citizen MUST "depart" from the Hippo box at point of sale, or the new buyer cannot complete the steps to be a citizen ( logic points (1) and (2) are true). A "departure policy" can be implemented in Hippo, but if the seller, at the time of sale, does not activate the procedure of departing from the Hippo box (which is likely, since no one expects to have to do that) an administrator will have to intervene, postponing the buyer's date of qualification.

So.... with current tools, there is no ideal solution. But I think that's the best one, if the community is willing to accept the difficult and in some ways exclusionary policies.

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

[Sudane Erato]

... and Sudane won't hesitate to correct me if i'm wrong, from trying to tie citizenship to land ownership. I've been trying to think of a way it could be simpler, and maybe it is as easy as making a registered voter system, untied from the land.

Quite honestly, and again as an administrator as Gwyn has requested, this system would be simple to administer. There are no interconnected logic items. The box status at the given qualification date simply determines who is a citizen. There would be policy decisions to be made... pre-payment policy, for example.

From a value point of view, I predict huge swirls of controversy on this (which personally I'd tend to agree with). But as an administrator, this is surely the best system.

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