Guild Forced to Move Home

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Spider Upshaw
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Spider Upshaw »

Over and over it is brought up here by you Jerry and Cleo:

Also, I hope you don't lose my respect, because i DO respect you. But you work directly for the Chancellor's office in your position as an EM. And when you disagree with your bosses in this manner, you need to handle it honorably by taking that disagreement to them first privately--NOT by dissing them in a public forum.

It seems like your call for transparency is just swept under the rug, and Cleo loves private conversations so nothing can be repeated.

The Government looks like it is operating underground now.
Speak up Jerry, be a man. well at least try

User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Sudane Erato »

Bagheera wrote:

However, it seems very relevant to THIS discussion to remember that the only two people who had the powers to make actual changes to the LV group were the Owners of the group - Rudeen Edo and Jamie Palisades. It is a documented fact that Rudeen Edo is Sudane's alt. One might try to argue that the Rudeen Edo alt is just a functionary and Sudane was separating her own decisions versus Rudeen's role as a functionary, so Sudane was making a decision whereas Rudeen only follows orders EXCEPT that the Rudeen alt was also used to perform the land transaction Sudane initiated.

So, Ceasar tells Sudane to make changes to the LV group, because the person (typist) who controls Sudane is also the sole controller of Rudeen. Rudeen, at that point, was the only one who could make sweeping changes to the LV group. I know this - even though the trail is lost and Ceasar now has the power to also change roles - because when I was Chancellor I wanted to change some of the powers and I had to talk to Sudane about it. That conversation is referred to here on the forums. So, Ceasar had to go to Sudane to get the changes done.

This is a complete fabrication and imaginary fantasy of what actually happened at the very beginning of Ceasar's term in office.

Not three days after he was elected. He sent me a list of changes he wished made in the Roles and Permissions of the CDS group and the LV group. With one small exception, I made the changes he requested, as I believed at that time that he had the authority to make those changes, and in most cases I was indeed the only person who could make them. Ceasar will certainly confirm that I made the changes as requested (with the one small exception which we discussed) with absolutely no further discussion or queries.

There was no discussion, nor any awareness on my part, of what way he would use those changes.

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

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Sudane Erato »

Gwyneth Llewelyn wrote:

A lightbulb suddenly appeared on top of my head...

Ah! Now that's why there were so many people in the Land Verwaltung group! It's because they needed access to Government-owned land, which has been used by other groups for other purposes! Well, one mystery solved: the purpose of having 'more transparency' is exactly to figure out why certain things have 'traditionally' and 'historically' been set up in a specific way, but later remained set up in a way that is forbidden by law... well, just because it's 'tradition'.

The current administration is set to destroy the 'status quo' of such long-standing 'traditions' which are contrary to the law. You know that I support that as well, and will continue to support everything that turns the CDS back to comply with the law, even when it goes contrary to 'tradition'. So I view this as one step in the right direction.

This has absolutely nothing to do about the current Guild or the School. It has to do about setting things right according to the law. If the Executive finds that I have some of my objects in public land which was not approved, I expect it to be returned, no questions asked — there should be no exceptions. Similarly, if they find out that I had somehow been using land that I don't own, I'm sure that I will asked to stop doing that, no matter what my 'age' as a citizen is, or for how long I've been paying tier. Those things are irrelevant! And, yes, I seriously suspect that there might be some prims of mine, specially in Neufreistadt, dating back from 2006 when we had to rebuild most of the city due to the 'Ulrikaquake'. No matter how good the intentions were back then, if the Executive finds anything out of place, it should be returned.

Now, as some pointed out (and the Chancellor has addressed that on the Executive thread), there are obviously many cases where the law is stupid/does not apply/is outdated/needs clarification/needs fixing. In all those cases, the purpose of this RA is to fix those laws, and let the Executive apply the new laws. I'm not quite sure if this is the case of the Neufreistadt School — after all, we have NL 4-16 Public Prim Allotment Act to explain how it should work: it's a public space, owned by the Government, not to any group, but, however, specific groups are explicitly permitted to contribute tier to them in exchange for permanent usage of that public space.

You might ask why we have this strange arrangement. Why isn't the School simply 'given' to the Guild? It would become a group-owned building, set to that group, and there would be no more problems. Well, the reason behind NL 4-16 was more aimed at the other public buildings, like the Kirche and the MoCA, which had a succession of small groups that preserved them — each failing after some months of trying out to keep those buildings 'alive' with events, exhibits, and other forms of usage. Back then, we had two options: because NFS has so much public land, we could simply consider to privatize certain public buildings. That would mean selling the land to a group, and stop considering the building as being 'public'. This would mean, for instance, that the Biergarten, in prime location, could simply be taken down by a group who wished to use it as a megashop in the Marktplatz instead (so long as it remained Fachwerk-y, it would fully comply with existing Covenants for that area). We would continue to get tier, reduce the private/public land ration a bit, but we would lose a major landmark, which is iconic for NFS. The same, of course, could also happen to things like the Kirche, for instance.

The School is also part of that philosophy. The building itself is quite iconic, and we felt that it was a pity that it would be lost if it were privatized. On the other hand, merely wasting prims on a building that has no use would be stupid. Thus, the agreement is that buildings like the School remain public — it means that the Executive will preserve and maintain them to remain exactly like they are, with minor modifications if needed (reducing prim count, remodelling the interiors, etc.), but a private group can fully use it for their own activities, free from 'Government control', so long as they're willing to contribute tier.

It also gives those groups an entitlement to the usage (but not ownership) of those iconic landmarks. So, as long as a group is willing to contribute tier to a public landmark, Government is prevented to designate that particular landmark for other uses. This is exactly what is intended: in the case of the School, for as long as a group is willing to pay tier for it, that group — and nobody else! — is allowed to use it for their own purposes in exclusivity (and perpetuity, so long as tier is being contributed). It worked rather well so far for the School; less so for the MoCA, for instance, where groups proposing to use that space come and go.

Now of course nobody — much less the current Guild — is 'forced' to use the School or any other building. They obviously have the choice to go elsewhere, just like some people who originally supported the MoCA prefered to do their own art exhibitions and galleries elsewhere in the CDS.

Personally, of course, I would rather prefer to continue to have a group supporting the School (as I would like to have a group supporting the MoCA, the Biergarten, the Kirche, and even perhaps the Schloss...).

However, it's important to understand that there is a huge difference between 'having usage rights' to a public space, and 'becoming part of the group that maintains the totality of the CDS'. NL 4-16 is quite clear on this point!! This is what over the years has been blurred: because groups of people have somehow 'contributed' to the CDS — financially by paying tier, or through hard work to benefit the CDS — they have, over the years, accumulated 'benefits' and 'privileges'. Well, the CDS is not a meritocracy: you don't get 'special rights' above other citizens because you have been in the CDS for a longer period, contributed more tier, or contributed more voluntary work. You get special thanks and eventually an award, but not more rights. This is a mentality that we have to revert and combat!

Now I fully understand that many CDS residents, who think that the CDS would be better served if it were a meritocracy, will feel deeply offended by my words. That's not my intention — my point is just that we're not a meritocracy, or at least not yet: because we're still a democracy, people are more than welcome to establish a 'meritocracy faction' and elect, on the next term, RA members that change the laws to allow a meritocracy to be set up instead of a democracy where everybody has the same rights. That is certainly possible. I, for one, would be very sad to see that day coming, but I would obviously have no choice but to submit to the people's decision in an election.

In the mean time, I fully support the idea of correcting, clarifying, amending, or even superseding any law that is deemed stupid, inappropriate, or completely against our traditions. In this specific case, if the Guild feels that they should be 'entitled' to the plot holding the School, because they can demonstrate that it's perhaps the longest-standing building complying with NL 4-16, I, for one, don't see any problem in amending NL 4-16 and turning that landmark over to private use. In that case, a new group would be able to own the plot, and it would be a group-owned building like every other one. We would change appropriate laws to exclude the School from any laws requiring the Executive to maintain it as a public building. It would only need to supervise compliance with Covenants, but, otherwise, the School would become just another nice building in the CDS, subject to none except the group owners of the plot. I have absolutely no problem with that. If there is a strong motivation and belief that this is the right way to go ahead with the School, I, for one, have no objections, and I'm definitely available to support any bill to that effect.

I am SORRRYYY for subjecting everyone to this long dissertation of Gwyn's yet again. I do it because I read it and my first impression was... hmmm... Gwyn, are you and I going to be on opposite sides of an issue AGAIN? (well... we don't disagree THAT often... but often enough...).

But then I kept reading, and more and more, while still disagreeing about some of the finer points, especially about fact, find I must overwhelmingly agree with your main point. That we aim to be a "community of laws", and that ultimately traditions, if accepted by the community as worthwhile, must be codified into laws arrived at by the agreed means... and not allowed to be simply "because we have always done things that way". Granted, we are finding that, over our 10 year history, this is not so simple. Notions of fairness and common sense, while understand innately by most people, when time comes to codify into a simple statute, don't easily render into the simple law. So while we are only 60 to 90 human beings living only a portion of our lives in this community, we've managed to collect a vast and unwieldy body of law that only a few of us can keep up with, and that even in itself has profound contradictions and ambiguities.

But I think Gwyn's main point... and Gwyn... please correct me if I'm wrong... is that customs and traditions must be converted into law, or else we will continually find conflict and dispute over issues for which tradition does not provide a complete and equitable framework.

Let's be quite frank here. The use of the School parcel by the Guild was founded in tradition. Any of the laws so far quoted by various advocates of one side or the other to this dispute do not fully apply to the core issue, but rather address side issues relating to the use of the School parcel (the sim prim bank, for example). I agree with Gwyn completely... some action by the RA is needed, eventually, to address this issue for the future. Lacking explicit legislation regarding issues of interest groups who volunteer to support public land, common sense and fairness should prevail. In our current polarized state, agreement on those two values might be in short supply.

But I suggest to everyone that they re-read Gwyn's post that I have quoted, as it explains some very fundamental principles on which the CDS community is founded.

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

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Sudane Erato »

And to follow up on an important detail in the previous post which quoted Gwyn's post, regarding the use and function of the LV group... I agree with Gwyn. The purpose of the LV group is to manage the public land of the CDS, and NOT to provide special provisions for members of a group which was supporting and using one of the public parcels.

Ceasar will testify that I argued vehemently that he NOT provide a special category of permissions in the LV group, because the LV group was under his authority to manage the general public land of the CDS, and as far as I knew he had the right to make the changes he did. I argued instead that, because he HAD altered the permissions of the individuals who supported the School parcel in such a way that they could no longer use it, that it would be only fair and reasonable to set the parcel under separate ownership.

That is the issue here. Yes, this is public land, donated to the public for a specific purpose, of providing a home for the Guild. If the Chancellor, in his wisdom, finds it needful to exclude the members of the group who support that parcel from the privileges that they need to use it, then it is only fair and reasonable to provide a separate ownership arrangement for that group so that they can continue to do so. Any other action, such as the one sadly taken, expels them from their home.

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

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
JerryDon Lane
Sadly departed
Sadly departed
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:46 pm

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by JerryDon Lane »

That is the issue here. Yes, this is public land, donated to the public for a specific purpose, of providing a home for the Guild. If the Chancellor, in his wisdom, finds it needful to exclude the members of the group who support that parcel from the privileges that they need to use it, then it is only fair and reasonable to provide a separate ownership arrangement for that group so that they can continue to do so. Any other action, such as the one sadly taken, expels them from their home.

And this is EXACTLY what the Chancellor's office is attempting to do right now. They want it done correctly, fairly and competently and under supervision of the Chancellors office if it is to remain LV property, because that is the law. Please read the transcripts of the RA meeting just held and you will see that for yourself.

This thread was rude, disrespectful and absolutely unnecessary because common sense should tell you that this guild CANNOT be extended special permission rights the way the system is currently set up. If they have special LV right on that one parcel, they have it on EVERY parcel that is LV controlled. And then others will demand those same rights and this could snowball into a major problem in CDS.

Our Chancellors office is to be commended in the professional manner in which they have handled this: via firm leadership.

No one is out to get the guild or anyone else. When problems arise like this, let's utilize communication and work within the law to fix it....mudslinging fixes nothing and hurts our democracy.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. Patrick Henry
User avatar
Spider Upshaw
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Spider Upshaw »

JERRY WROTE:
When problems arise like this, let's utilize communication and work within the law to fix it....mudslinging fixes nothing and hurts our democracy.

REPLY:
Mean spirited actions inflicted upon Citizens by officials like Caesar has no place here. Where was the communication you talk about Jerry?
Oh and one other thing, why do you have a church in a residential area? Who do you think you are Caesar Jr.?

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Spider Upshaw wrote:

Oh and one other thing, why do you have a church in a residential area?

Just to be clear on this one, Jerry approached me with the idea of the Church in Locus Amoenus when I was Chancellor. I said that I was happy provided the build was in line with our Covenants and they paid tier on the parcel.

I think that government should err on the side of providing freedom for people to practice their religious beliefs even where a strict, literalist interpretation of the law might mean saying 'no' from time to time. This applies to all religions of course! Pagans should be free to use CDS public buildings and open spaces for their ceremonies and festivals. Those of no religion should be able to do so too.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
User avatar
Spider Upshaw
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Spider Upshaw »

Regarding Jerry's Church
Pat, I agree with you but doesn't this bring to mind what was done with the Guild? Was the land the Guild held made by a decision made in good faith? The Guild was abruptly and in a mean spirit tossed from their land by our Chancellor? The church being built on residential ground in some way must be out of line with the LAW.

So in one instance not following the LAW is tolerated and in another it is not.

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Jon Seattle »

Patroklus Murakami wrote:

I think that government should err on the side of providing freedom for people to practice their religious beliefs even where a strict, literalist interpretation of the law might mean saying 'no' from time to time. This applies to all religions of course! Pagans should be free to use CDS public buildings and open spaces for their ceremonies and festivals. Those of no religion should be able to do so too.

I very much agree with this. Some of the finest and most moving builds I have seen in SL are inspired by religious feeling. This should apply to both public and private spaces where the use does not infringe the rights of others.

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Spider, please, you're participating here, but not reading things :)

The School was never 'owned' by the Guild (the current one or any of the previous ones), ok? That land was public land, held by Government. The current Guild, like the ones before them, just had the usage rights to that land, as long as they were willing to contribute tier to it. Re-read the provisions under NL 4-16 again, please.

Repeating things over and over again just to try to forge an alternative 'truth' is demagogy. But it's also a bit tiring.

Now, let's get back to the main issue, shall we? Sudane pointed out very clearly (much clearer than me!) that if we find that the 'traditions' are at odds with current law, then one of two choices really have to be made. Either 'tradition' is forfeited because it's contrary to the spirit of a democratic community, where everybody has the same rights and duties, and nobody gets any 'privileges' — or the law should be changed to adapt to tradition.

In this case, I see a very simple way out. Let's vote on granting the School to the Guild. This would really be an offer of ownership of the land. The Guild would truly and rightfully own the School. It would not be a 'public landmark' any more, but just a privately owned one. And that would allow the Guild to create its own group and set the land to their own group as well.

I see the current solution — creating a new role on the Land Verwaltung group that allows some people to have access to things like posting notices, ads, setting parcel streaming, etc. — as merely a temporary, stop-gap solution, but definitely not a permanent one: it still violates the principle that all citizens should have the same rights and duties, and that the Land Verwaltung group should exclusively be used for maintenance by the Executive's staff and nobody else.

Personally, I think that NL 4-16 has outlived its purpose. As far as I know, the only building still using NL 4-16 is the School. It's far more reasonable to pack the current school, save a copy of it to the Content Archivist, and give the land away. If for some reason in the future the current Guild doesn't want or need the land anyway, it will revert to Government once more, and it could unpack the saved School and set it up again — until another group wants to have a go at it.

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Gwyneth Llewelyn wrote:

Spider, please, you're participating here, but not reading things :)

The School was never 'owned' by the Guild (the current one or any of the previous ones), ok? That land was public land, held by Government. The current Guild, like the ones before them, just had the usage rights to that land, as long as they were willing to contribute tier to it. Re-read the provisions under NL 4-16 again, please.

Repeating things over and over again just to try to forge an alternative 'truth' is demagogy. But it's also a bit tiring.

Now, let's get back to the main issue, shall we? Sudane pointed out very clearly (much clearer than me!) that if we find that the 'traditions' are at odds with current law, then one of two choices really have to be made. Either 'tradition' is forfeited because it's contrary to the spirit of a democratic community, where everybody has the same rights and duties, and nobody gets any 'privileges' — or the law should be changed to adapt to tradition.

In this case, I see a very simple way out. Let's vote on granting the School to the Guild. This would really be an offer of ownership of the land. The Guild would truly and rightfully own the School. It would not be a 'public landmark' any more, but just a privately owned one. And that would allow the Guild to create its own group and set the land to their own group as well.

I see the current solution — creating a new role on the Land Verwaltung group that allows some people to have access to things like posting notices, ads, setting parcel streaming, etc. — as merely a temporary, stop-gap solution, but definitely not a permanent one: it still violates the principle that all citizens should have the same rights and duties, and that the Land Verwaltung group should exclusively be used for maintenance by the Executive's staff and nobody else.

Personally, I think that NL 4-16 has outlived its purpose. As far as I know, the only building still using NL 4-16 is the School. It's far more reasonable to pack the current school, save a copy of it to the Content Archivist, and give the land away. If for some reason in the future the current Guild doesn't want or need the land anyway, it will revert to Government once more, and it could unpack the saved School and set it up again — until another group wants to have a go at it.

Hear, hear! :)

Honi soit qui mal y pense
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

As for having buildings for religious practice in residential places... I really don't know what to say. The problem is that I see it more as a complex precedent; which in turn might make us consider to rethink the Covenants.

Originally, the idea of splitting private zoning into commercial and residential areas was because of traffic issues. One would expect that commercial areas would attract more visitors, generate some (visual) lag, and limit people's privacy — because so many people would be around. Thus, commercial areas were set apart from residential areas: if you bought a plot in a residential area, you would be sure that there weren't large assemblies of avatars nearby. Thus, things like bars or clubs — even if access was for free — were usually allowed on commercial areas only.

But over time, this has long be violated. I remember that the CSDF used to meet at Jon's place, down by the NFS valley, at his lovely church in ruins. So clearly people were assembling together and discuss politics. They were not engaging in business — a strict and literalist view of what 'commercial area' means — but, from the perspective of the neighbours, it would mean that every week or so, a group would get together and chat. Was this a violation of the residential Covenants or not?

Good question. But we can go further. I used my own place, also located in the NFS valley, to do some meditation classes. The major reason for using that space was that some people objected to doing meditation inside of a quasi-Christian church (it would be specially offensive for practicing Catholics, since the previous Pope forbade churches and religious organisations to allow meditation and yoga classes on Church-owned buildings; other Christian faiths might have the same limitations set by their religious leaders, I don't know). Well, once again, probably the spirit of what is deemed to be a strictly 'residential' place was violated: a public meeting of people was held, who would assemble together at a spot which was 'residential', and that happened with some regularity. So maybe my neighbours would be annoyed by that. Or not? I don't know because I never asked!

But finally, imagine the following scenario: someone having a moderately large home routinely throws up parties for their friends. These would not be publicly announced, of course, but invitations would be sent personally and privately to a relatively large group of friends. They would come together, play loud music, have a DJ, get some pose balls and dance bracelets to dance, and, well, do it routinely. Because everything happens 'in private' and the building is clearly a residential villa or palace or house, and not a 'club', this would, strictly speaking, be an acceptable use of residential land. But neighbours might complain (as they would in real life!), because, for all purposes, they had turned their villa into a private club — even if access was free and not paid for, and no tip jars were visible, etc. Would this be allowed? One would argue 'yes' — after all, are we really going to forbid people to invite friends to their own homes and have fun together? If we disallowed this, then we would practically be forbidding people to stay at home and chat with anyone, for 'fear' of disturbing the neighbours! All you could do at home would be to build things, shuffle prims around, and maybe stare at the walls...

So clearly we need a better definition of what's allowed and what's not. I think we should stick to commercial areas as unambiguously places where occur exchanges of money for goods or services. Everything else — including the rightful assembly of people, just a party for friends, or a book discussion, or a political/religious meeting — would be fine on 'residential' land, so long as no money transaction occurs on the process. I believe this is pretty much what Jon and Pat are also suggesting.

This doesn't solve another, related problem — should events on residential areas be allowed to be publicly announced or not? Technically, one of the reasons for having commercial areas was also to allow events to be set on those areas, and on those areas only. However, that would prevent announcing a rightful assembly of citizens in the privacy of their homes (be for whatever reason). I think that should be given some thought as well.

Last edited by Gwyneth Llewelyn on Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Mispelled 'CSDF'. Shame on me!

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Cadence Theas
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:50 am

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Cadence Theas »

Gwyneth Llewelyn wrote:

As for having buildings for religious practice in residential places... I really don't know what to say. The problem is that I see it more as a complex precedent; which in turn might make us consider to rethink the Covenants.

This might be one of the flexibilities that makes co-living possible, an understandable allowance or tolerance for things that are not strictly covenant--that is how societies normally work anyway--instead of rigid adherence to a set of rules which should mainly serve as a backdrop when things pass beyond that margin of tolerance. And technically, on private land, the belief system that is being espoused in the place of worship would have no impact on mine as it would in a public building no matter how ecumenical it was alleged to be. Home worship also has a lot of historical antecedents in the European context with certain religions having to hide themselves and their worship in the privacy of their homes during times of persecution. We are not RP sims but we do allege to a certain affinity to historical constructions. The criterion, as hard as it would be to measure, is the sense of neighborliness. If its parties, keep them reasonable, if it is worship, keep it to yourself. The trick is to do it without the benefit of the law which always has a tendency to muddle more than it resolves.

But I do agree with you wondering as to the appropriateness of using the forums or the CDS notice system as the venue for the announcement of private events. Presumably religious groups would have their list of members to send out their IMs. We could consider, although this means another level of complexity, a separate announcement channel for private events that a CDS member could subscribe to, or suggest that CDS chat is the place for these sorts of announcements.

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Well, I'm glad that for once it seems that we can get some reasonable consensus on such a tricky issue :)

You can count on me to approve some sort of 'clarification bill' allowing rightful assembly, for whatever purpose (well, so long as it's legal... that would rule out things like getting together to engage in hate speech, for instance), on residential areas — and eventually ground the decision for that bill on the UDHR, which states that every person should have the right to assemble together. I think this should go a long way to solve the issue!

I'd like to hear a little more about the access to public channels of event notification, when they're announced on residential land. There are many mechanisms for doing that, of course, but I also understand that for some kinds of events — when public attendance is desirable, for an event which is clearly non-commercial — this might not be enough. Well, let's discuss! :)

Last edited by Gwyneth Llewelyn on Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: My grammar sucks. And I've been just drinking water tonight!

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Spider Upshaw
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Guild Forced to Move Home

Post by Spider Upshaw »

Hey Gwen,

Regardless of the information surrounding the guild or church the fact that the law is enforced in one instance and not in the other is what I am talking about.

So in one instance not following the LAW is tolerated and in another it is not.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”