Moderator: SC Moderators
One plot one citizen ( the avatar who purchased the land last is the citizen )...
...If I buy a second plot I get nothing more except the plot whether I put it in a group or not. ...
...My wife buys a plot. She becomes a citizen. She gets a payment box.
This from Ceasar makes the most sense for ease of administration. Why not keep it simple?
Funny, this thread seems have have come full circle back to basically what we already do.
Still we have added group citizenship and sponsor citizenship. From what I can tell from my rather recent history in CDS, these were instituted to allow for partners or people with little income to retain or gain citizenship. I think in part, support for these alternative plans stem from some belief that citizenship solely based on land ownership is undemocratic. IMO, anyway we see the practical need to ensure CDS can pay LL its tier while still offer a path to citizenship for the person who cannot afford to buy land or who wants to test the waters as a group member or sponsor.
I am not worried that all people would merely join a group to avoid land ownership. I observe that people are more than willing to contribute monetarily via the ownership of land. Group member citizens seem merely to be partners and merely want to keep all their land in a group as that affords both partners more access. This might not always be the case, but I don't think we can point to any deceptive reason.
Gwyn, I think your suggestion would be way too complicated. It would definitely be way too much to explain to a person comparing estates when looking for a virtual home. I wonder also, who would ever understand the plan. As it is we seem to be unable to remember when elections are supposed to start.
Basically, I believe we have done a good job in establishing a liberal citizenship policy. It might not be the most ideal for many reasons, but it isn't bad.
Tor
I agree with Ceasars idea also, which i was also thinking about: just do away with all these complicated rules about groups and partners. What is the added value ? Also: if someone has a 'partner' in SL, that does not necessarily mean any connection with the CDS.
regards,
josjoha
Ceasar Xigalia wrote:How about this
One citizen one vote
One plot one citizen ( the avatar who purchased the land last is the citizen )
each plot owner has a payment box ( or hippo etc) and pays the box each month ( Encourages people to stay connected with CDS at least once a month)
Plots can be put in a group but the citizen is the original purchaser of a plot ie they cannot just add avatars because they have more than one plot in the group.So if I buy a plot and put it in a group I get a box and a vote as a citizen( my first plot)
If I buy a second plot I get nothing more except the plot whether I put it in a group or not. I put the plot in the group. My wife buys a plot. She becomes a citizen. She gets a payment box. She puts the land in the group. She stays a citizen. We have three plots two citizens and one vote each. We have to stay up to date with all tier payments to vote.Ceasar
As Tor points out, this is exactly what we do now with our "old payment system". One citizen, one payment box. The list of payments boxes is the list of citizens.
The only change is that Ceasar's proposal gets rid of group membership and other "non-land-owning" categories of citizenship. That's all well and good. If we wanted to take this approach, we could still retain "microlots", which are tiny parcels that I've maintained in NFS so that the old tier system has a piece of land that it can tie someone's payment box to. The minimum L$250/month would apply.
But as administrator I have two primary objections.
1. There is no point to using the Hippo system with this plan, since the Hippo system is "parcel-based" (one box for each parcel). The old system which is "citizen-based" (one box for each citizen) makes much more sense. I remain on the fence about the Hippo system, but it does have many advantages which we would be excluding by tossing it.
2. Most importantly, by allowing citizens to deed their parcels to groups means that you lose the connection between the citizen and the land, This was central to Gwyn's proposal. If we REALLY want to define the citizen as someone who owns land in the CDS, then we need to exclude this action. Please remember... I can buy land in the CDS, become a citizen, deed my land to a group.... and then leave that group. I no longer have ANY connection to ANY land in the CDS, but I am still a citizen. And there is absolutely no way that an administrator or anyone else can know this. So long as you keep paying the tier box, the fact that you own no land in the CDS is unknown to anyone.
As I said in reply to Gwyn's proposal, I am dubious that this will be approved, since everyone in SL feels they MUST deed their land to their group... a very misconceived idea. As Gwyn replied:
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?
If folks are attracted to Ceasar's proposal, that's fine. Excluding group and "sponsored" citizenship makes things a bit more clear. But please consider the points here. The proposal does very little to alter the problems we face with our current system, since it hardly changes it.
Sudane.................................
Indeed you do not need to deed your land to your group just to give permissions to your friends in your group. That is what groups are for, to manage what people can do like changing the music stream, rezzing objects etc.
I don't understand why people think they need to deed the land to their group for this.
Sorry to be late to this conversation and potentially throwing a monkey wrench into what appears to be a reasonable proposal.
What happens if you have two people who want to share a high prim item? If they have two plots, they might not have enough prims individually to rez the item, whereas if they join the plots, then they can.
Bagheera wrote:What happens if you have two people who want to share a high prim item? If they have two plots, they might not have enough prims individually to rez the item, whereas if they join the plots, then they can.
Bagheera,
This is why in my suggestion I covered the continued use of groups, however limited by the concept of the land owner who first purchased the land being the citizen when they put the land into a group.
regards Ceasar
Bagheera wrote:Sorry to be late to this conversation and potentially throwing a monkey wrench into what appears to be a reasonable proposal.
What happens if you have two people who want to share a high prim item? If they have two plots, they might not have enough prims individually to rez the item, whereas if they join the plots, then they can.
If you deed the two plots to the same group, the prim budgets are shared without the need to join?
But I'd be very against giving residents the right to join and subdivide land at will. The look and feel of the Sims in question would be destroyed over time would be my main concern - I don't know of a single themed SIM that allows it either.
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
Bagheera wrote:Sorry to be late to this conversation and potentially throwing a monkey wrench into what appears to be a reasonable proposal.
What happens if you have two people who want to share a high prim item? If they have two plots, they might not have enough prims individually to rez the item, whereas if they join the plots, then they can.
Then they can't rez the high prim item? We all have to live within prim limits and other restrictions via the covenants. This is just another one.
I think this is an 'edge case' and I think we have spent too long trying to fit our citizenship laws to fit multiple 'edge cases'. As a result we have very complicated and untransparent citizenship laws. Let's get back to making it simple - have the owners name on the plot (instead of a group) and... if you don't own at least one plot you're not a citizen.
Patroklus Murakami wrote:Bagheera wrote:Sorry to be late to this conversation and potentially throwing a monkey wrench into what appears to be a reasonable proposal.
What happens if you have two people who want to share a high prim item? If they have two plots, they might not have enough prims individually to rez the item, whereas if they join the plots, then they can.
Then they can't rez the high prim item? We all have to live within prim limits and other restrictions via the covenants. This is just another one.
I think this is an 'edge case' and I think we have spent too long trying to fit our citizenship laws to fit multiple 'edge cases'. As a result we have very complicated and untransparent citizenship laws. Let's get back to making it simple - have the owners name on the plot (instead of a group) and... if you don't own at least one plot you're not a citizen.
I have long opposed a solid land-to-franchise link or sole route to citizenship, thinking that it would price talented people out of our project and unnecessarily restrict our population to our rate of geographic expansion. However, I am rethinking my position on this. I'm not yet to the one voter/one lot point, but I find Pat's and Ceaser's argument fairly compelling. It would certainly be easy to administer and would foster real geographic links to our sims.
However, I am also sympathetic to the specter of the CDS becoming a Home Owners' Assn gone mad. I deal with those professionally all the time. They tend to be vehicles for vindictive and officious retirees to take out a lifetime of regrets on their neighbors. When I bought a house in real life, I had one over-riding criterion -- that the neighborhood not have an active homeowner's assn.
I will pay close attention to this debate this term and approach it with the open mind many folks doubt I have.
Beathan
I propose that the Representative Assembly set up a commission at the next meeting on 10 December to examine this issue and develop proposals for legislation. Here is my proposal for the remit of the commission:
Citizenship Transparency Commission
The Representative Assembly wants to simplify the CDS citizenship rules so that it is easier to identify who is/is not a citizen in a transparent manner. The current mix of land ownership, land sponsorship and group membership has become too complicated and needs reform.Remit:
The Commission will meet in public and invite contributions from all CDS citizens. The aim will be to produce draft legislation for the RA to consider which will reform CDS citizenship rules and make them simpler and more transparent.Tasks:
1. The Commission will identify who is/is not a citizen under our current rules and identify who has citizenship because of land ownership, land sponsorship, group land ownership or other category of citizenship.
2. The Commission will consider what the consequences would be of moving to a system where citizenship derives solely from individual land ownership where the owner/citizen's name appears on the parcel listing (i.e. not allowing land to be deeded to group).
3. The Commission will consult with all those who would be affected by such a change.
4. The Commission will draft legislation to enact a simpler, more transparent set of citizenship rules and describe how any transitional issues are to be handled so that current citizens are treated fairly.Membership:
The Commission will be chaired by [name of RA member]. All citizens are invited to take part in the Commission.Timetable:
The Commission chair will provide updates at RA meetings. The Commission will aim to complete its work by 1st March 2012.
I support this proposal, but having one chaired a similar "Citizenship Commission", I don't want to chair this one.
The RA meeting on 10 December voted to set up the Citizenship Transparency Commision and asked me to chair it. I will set up an inworld meeting shortly. I would welcome some help from someone who could organise a meeting at a US friendly time.
Calli has suggested that we consider the contributions and outcome from the previous citizenship commission held about a year ago. The relevant post is here.
I remember a similar commission 5 years ago that I ended up chairing - whoever does it needs some asbestos plate armor. The political response and the entire process is a large reason I decided to retire from political office (and these forums) for a few years. I only hope CDS has cooled its jets a little on the topic -
I do think group membership's closest analogy is a "separate but equal" category of citizenship, and is a no mans land and a muddled answer to a vague question(s):
1. Is CDS is land/SIM cooperative first and foremost?
2. If #1 is a "no" are we comfortable in having citizenship detached fro the land or not?
3. Since we all get paranoid when new people join up legally around election time of "packing" the vote (overlooking that our election time is the most attractive/exciting times for CDS!)- why are we less concerned with abuse of group membership that cannot be tracked? (And if we are - how much effort are we willing to put in to "policing" the rolls? On my payment box, I am still listed in a group I am no longer a member of ... but I still own land in CDS so the point is moot, but it seems to have some administrative overhead we may not have time for)
4. Is there a way to have microplots/affordable plots for citizens that satisfies the solution that groups were supposed to solve? (like an ocean homestead region split into microplots with a few craggy rentable islands, for instance)
I used to be a hard core "detach citizenship from land" years ago, but have reverse my feelings over the years of experience in SL, but I am not hardcore. This is one of those areas where SL is not like RL.
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
Since Pat has called a new committee hearing for Sunday March 4, I thought I would try to assemble a citizenship definition proposal that realistically makes use of the tools we have available to us. Structurally, I place this proposal within the framework of Gwyn's definitions, posted very clearly at the head of this thread.
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 609#p18516
Using her proposed bills as a structure, this framework is:
1. Citizenship Establishment
2. Citizenship membership publication for election purposes.
3. Election calendar and election responsilities.
My proposals will address the topics in one and two.
There are two *primary* and mechanically unrelated factors which we have always assumed underlie the criteria for citizenship. One is "ownership" of a piece of land. The second is being current in tier payments for that land. Sadly, these two factors are entirely unrelated, absent some very sophisticated custom software tools which we do not now possess. For the purpose of our citizenship proposals, we must assume they are entirely mechanically un-related.
Please note that even with our current 5 sims, we have 208 privately-owned (or potentially privately owned) parcels. Any suggestion that we can rigorously manually track the status of citizenship by comparing ownership lists with tier payment lists is unrealistic. Consider these two scenarios.
1. Citizen Q owns four parcels. Two have current payments. One has payment in arrears, but with Citizen Q's name still on the tier box. One parcel is owned by Citizen Q but has tier payment so late that the tier box has reverted to "For Sale". Question: what is the status of this citizen?
2. Citizen R owns one parcel. (I'll keep it simple; think about if this tenant owned 8 parcels!) Citizen R has let the tier expire. Question: do we assume that that person is no longer a citizen? Two weeks later, Citizen R starts making payments again, before CDS personnel have had a chance to set the parcel for sale. OR, CDS personnel DO set the parcel for sale, and Citizen R buys it again, and pays the tier box. Question: what was the first date of this person's citizenship (for the purpose of election census.
None of our software systems can handle these scenarios. Both, separately, (the Hippo system, and, potentially, the Land Scanner system) can take a snapshot and at that given moment list the tier payment status (the Hippo system) and the parcel ownership status (the Land Scanner system cannot do this at this time, but I think it's a feasible modification from our very generous Scanner creator Timo Gufler).
So.... my proposals....
1. Citizenship establishment.
A citizen shall be an individual avatar who's name appears on both the Hippo list as being current in the tier payments and on a list of current parcel owners. Note that this will eliminate group ownership of a parcel as a criteria for citizenship. You could deed your parcel to a group, but it will not qualify you as a citizen.
Only one current "ownership/up-to-date tier payment" status will be considered qualifying. If you have other parcels in arrears, that would be considered a dispute with the community, but not a citizenship-disqualifying status.
2. Citizenship membership publication for election purposes.
On the cutoff date, at the cutoff time, CDS personnel will generate both a Hippo list of tier payors and a Land Scanner list of parcel owners. They will then compare these two lists to determine that a given name appears on both lists, and that that given name is current in at least one parcel tier payment. Ideally, the parcels on these two lists will match, but this will require yet another further modification of the Land Scanner software (because EVERYONE feels it necessary to change their parcel name once they buy it).
All names which appear on both lists and which are current in at least one tier payment will be published as qualified citizens. That published list will appear no later than 5 days after the cutoff date. (To allow CDS personnel time to correlate the lists).
Until such time that the Land Scanner list is mechanically available, citizenship shall be published based simply on the Hippo tier payment list.
Obviously, all this would need to get re-written in proper form.
I'll try very hard to be at the March 4 meeting to answer questions.
Sudane..............................