Patroklus Murakami wrote:I disagree Calli, I think that *who* is affected is entirely relevant. Think about it this way, if the original intent in starting this discussion was "Let's find another way to use the law to intimidate and harrass xxx. With any luck we might be able to drive him/her out of the community.", then knowing who is affected is completely relevant. So, this thread or another, I want to know who is affected before I wander further down the garden path being laid out for us here.
While I think enforcement of the law isn't optional, the method in which people are brought in compliance, especially when such a thing was a good-faith effort that happened not to be in compliance with the law, really is up for discussion (though wouldn't this be at the discretion of the Chancellor in this case? I figure that officeholder ought to consult with the RA and SC since undoubtedly there might be one or two that might feel this is arbitrary, and would take their case to the SC and RA - so it is best to sort it out as a group on how the government would handle it.
WHy do I think that we can't just let sleeping dogs lie? Given the sensitivity of CDS towards "citizen packing" (And Pat, you are quick to openly worry about such things!)- where people question the "legitimacy" of new residents that might vote one way or another - I think we have bent over backwards to try to find ways of reconciling a "landowning, tier paying citizen" with groups by allowing land to be set to a group, but not deeded to them.
The solution is painless, though, in that the group land has to be divided amongst the group members, and then set to, but not deeded to a group. Nobody loses citizenship, and you are left with the same amount of land useable to the group, but accounted for in the way we choose to tally citizenship.
I'm not worried about this thread developing a sectarian bent, I'm worried instead that sectarianism was the motive for starting it rather than some neutral, objective quest for truth. Why do I think that? I observe the way the current Chancellor has used the considerable powers of the office to purge the Executive team of anyone from the perceived 'opposition', to harass individuals rezzing items on their own land and [the incident we must not yet refer to]. That's my evidence for holding the opinions I am expressing here.
LOL ... WOrrying about a sectarian bent, then making lots of sectarian colored interpretation of the Chancellor's office. You crack me up, Pat.
Now, I could be wrong. I could just be being paranoid. There may be several people with land deeded to groups on all sides of our political landscape. It would be useful to know.
IN all seriousness, I think the main controversy that is being generated by the current Chancellor is his dogged adherence to the law. We'd been run so loose so long, that it feels like a lot of big changes, and in some sense it is, but it is bringing much into compliance with the law.
If we want to have another "go" at groups vs citizenship (again) - we can bring it to the RA. So long as the law is changed to whatever it is we want by the RA, I am pretty sure the Chancellor will do that.