REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned lan

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

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

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

I see that the issue is then dealing with loopholes that allow citizens to hold far more land than they should be allowed...

How can we deal with that, short of forcing the Chancellor/Treasurer to look into each group-owned land and listing manually everybody's parcels?

Is there a way to automate that procedure? I'm imagining something like Timo's tool listing all group members and making all calculations. Unfortunately, as far as I remember, there is no LSL tool to list all group members...

"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

Soro Dagostino
Sadly departed
Sadly departed
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:28 am

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Soro Dagostino »

This is an area of unintended consequences . . . While I see what is intended, there remain matters of concern. Suppose the "group" to which the land is "set" is formed by a munificent host, and who wants to allow the "members" of the group the right to rezz, say their sailboats? ((Horses, Roos and other critters also come to mind)) Sort of like the issue of who may do so in the lands surrounding the Blake Sea and SLNE. Maybe those who are members of a church? Are the square meters of that specific parcel -- to be charged, in full, to each member, even though they only have rezzing or meeting rights?

Clearly, if the land is deeded ((a mistake I made, a in some former partnerships)) the the square meter value of the land should be charged to such a citizen, when that citizen can claim citizenry based on the Deeded land.

On the other hand, when land is "set" there are no voting rights. Why then charge the square meters to each participant? That means that a group of 10, is now limited in their available square meter ownership ten times ((in the aggregate)) the amount of a single person. Even when the restricted person cannot claim citizenry based on the group setting.

I won't even color this question with the issue of the use of LLC's that hide the participating members.

Bottle Washer
CDS SC
User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Rosie Gray »

Soro Dagostino wrote:

This is an area of unintended consequences . . . While I see what is intended, there remain matters of concern. Suppose the "group" to which the land is "set" is formed by a munificent host, and who wants to allow the "members" of the group the right to rezz, say their sailboats? ((Horses, Roos and other critters also come to mind)) Sort of like the issue of who may do so in the lands surrounding the Blake Sea and SLNE. Maybe those who are members of a church? Are the square meters of that specific parcel -- to be charged, in full, to each member, even though they only have rezzing or meeting rights?

Clearly, if the land is deeded ((a mistake I made, a in some former partnerships)) the the square meter value of the land should be charged to such a citizen, when that citizen can claim citizenry based on the Deeded land.

On the other hand, when land is "set" there are no voting rights. Why then charge the square meters to each participant? That means that a group of 10, is now limited in their available square meter ownership ten times ((in the aggregate)) the amount of a single person. Even when the restricted person cannot claim citizenry based on the group setting.

I won't even color this question with the issue of the use of LLC's that hide the participating members.

Just to clarify:

When you 'set' land to a group, it means you can use the group to give permissions for anyone in that group to set the music stream, rez, or whatever. It has no bearing on citizenship of the members, other than the owner of the group. The land is still owned by the individual.

When you 'deed' land to a group, it means that the group owns the land, no individual.

"Courage, my friend, it's not too late to make the world a better place."
~ Tommy Douglas
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

I'd like to know *who* has land deeded to group. It seems to me that we are being invited to participate in a debate in the abstract which has a very concrete set of implications for the people concerned.

I'd like to think that this is not an example of sectarianism on the part of the Executive (Ceasar and Bagheera) i.e. "How do we find a way to get at our perceived political opponents? Let's find a way to take some of their land off them!" But it's difficult to assess whether there might be something to this, or whether I'm just being paranoid, until we know *who* has land deeded to group and therefore who is affected. I would have thought this would be something the Executive could easily tell us.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Callipygian »

Patroklus Murakami wrote:

I'd like to know *who* has land deeded to group. It seems to me that we are being invited to participate in a debate in the abstract which has a very concrete set of implications for the people concerned.

I'd like to think that this is not an example of sectarianism on the part of the Executive (Ceasar and Bagheera) i.e. "How do we find a way to get at our perceived political opponents? Let's find a way to take some of their land off them!" But it's difficult to assess whether there might be something to this, or whether I'm just being paranoid, until we know *who* has land deeded to group and therefore who is affected. I would have thought this would be something the Executive could easily tell us.

I disagree Pat; this kind of clarification is best done *in* the abstract, so that whatever actual or perceived alliances exist, they are not a factor in the discussion.

It's clear that what the law was *meant* to say, in the memory of those who worked on it, and what the law *appears* to say are at odds; that should be clarified, and it should not matter who may be affected by that clarification.

The only way this clarification causes anyone to lose land is if the group is holding more land than the members within it are entitled to hold, by law. If that is not the case, and the clarification is 'the land should be set, not deeded' then it's a matter of the group members switching the settings. If, as I think someone suggested, the right to hold this land was grandfathered at some point, there should be a record of that in a previous law or transcript. If it's decided the law does, or should, allow deeded land, then the law needs to be revised so that is clear.

In all of the above, in my opinion, who the members of the group are is immaterial. Identifying them may actually lead to this becoming another sectarian battleground, instead of an objective review of the law.

Calli

Calli

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing.

Walter H. Judd
Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

Moderator Comment Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-

Post by Callipygian »

If anyone does insist on discussing *who* the members of any affected groups are, they should do so in a separate thread, probably under General Discussion.

Those who wish to continue discussing the original topic are of course welcome to continue doing so.

Callipygian

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing.

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

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Taking Rosie's comment into account, I withdraw my suggestion. Apparently the legislators who wrote CDSL 16-03 knew what they were doing — just setting land to a group doesn't interfere with land calculation. In that case, I might have to side with Bagheera and start reviewing what land is currently deeded, and see why it is necessary.

It also avoids Soro's objection — he's completely right, and I was hoping that nobody noticed the issue he raises :) I was actually thinking of another complicated issue. Suppose that someone holds an event for a whole month (say, an art exhibit) which, by a sad coincidence, happens just before election day. That event might have an associated group where artists and event hosters are part of the group to be allowed to rezz objects, etc. Now Census Day comes along. Although all these people are just artists doing a temporary exhibit, people start adding up the extra land they are now holding, find that they're over the limits, and demand that they aren't allowed to run for office and/or vote since they're in violation of the laws... tricky!

I now understand that just setting land to group has no such effect. So maybe we really have to abolish land deeded to groups...

Now I need to log in to see if I haven't deeded land by mistake!!

"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
Bagheera
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Bagheera »

Gwyn - yes, just setting land to a group (versus deeding) allows group members to rez. Streaming media is a little more complex but still possible, by using an radio-scripted object that belongs to the land owner and is deeded and shared with the group, the settings in that object can be used to control media and radio stream...so there is no reason to deed land to a group in CDS. The main advantage to deeding land to a group exists primarily on the mainland, where one receives a 10% additional allowance in meters owned for tier.

Pat - I don't want to name names because it really is just about gaining clarity of the law. JUST as an EXAMPLE: If I were as duplicitious as you imply, I would have accepted your first answer, then quietly begun the activities I am trying to prevent (i.e. buying up CDS land and deeding it to a groups). Within 3-4 months, I imagine I could acquire quite a bit! If/when someone cried foul, I'd point them to this thread. Instead, keeping it theoretical means it can be viewed solely on its merits. Thank you.

Usually I Dislike a Cloud Sky
Tonight I Realize That a Cloud Sky
Makes Me Appreciate the Light of the Moon
- impromptu poem composed by Gen'i
as depicted in Yoshitoshi's 100 Aspects of the Moon
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

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.

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.

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.

As you are a moderator, I will defer to your request that naming people be pursued elsewhere. I'll post the request in 'General Discussion'.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Bromo Ivory »

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.

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

User avatar
Tor Karlsvalt
Chancellor
Chancellor
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:56 am
Contact:

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Tor Karlsvalt »

I don't think we can have this discussion unless we also call attention to group land, not set or deeded to a group but held by a group controlled AV.

If RA intended to prevent deeding to a group, how could it overlook alts created expressly hold land. We have this with the Monastery. We know the AV name. Citizenship is never granted to this AV nor to anyone associated to the Monastery as a landholder. Yet there it is, group controlled land. And this group controlled AV has traded land in the monastery sim.

I know another group established by a citizen for the purpose of fostering projects among CDS citizens and giving them rights to build on group land in LA. This group also made use of a group controlled AV. This group was widely known among frequent users of LA. Bags was a major member of this group and for a time had access to the group AV. I believe this group also formed to support LA. The group has since disbanded and divested its land as new people came into LA first from Cedar Island and later as Abby and her friends showed interest in LA.

Given all this, I doubt RA intended to go beyond merely ensuring that group land was not used to gain or keep citizenship. I don't believe the Chancellor at the time was ever required to break up land already held by a group. I certainly wasn't.

I do remember one citizen being deprived of voting rights because of this law. She was extremely upset and did have the result of her removing her land from AMUA.

Also, I would assert that RA cannot force a group to divest itself of land held before before the law was enacted. Likely, it could stop said group from acquiring new land.

I do agree, however, that the law seems to need clarification.

Tor

Citizen
User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Bromo Ivory »

You know, as I read this, I am thinking that a "minimum impact" compomise might be:

1. Land deeded to a group cannot count towards citizenship of anyone.
2. The maximum amount of land any one group can hold is XXX, or by special charter by CDS (like Monatery, MoCA, etc.)

Would/Could this land count towards the maximum land held by its members, too? If you do that it can get out of people "Gaming" the system to snap up land in a group to take it out of the voter-pool, since it would be neutral.

Our laws are pretty clear on the subject, too. I think exceptions are already there for special charters.

Tor Karlsvalt wrote:

I don't think we can have this discussion unless we also call attention to group land, not set or deeded to a group but held by a group controlled AV.

If RA intended to prevent deeding to a group, how could it overlook alts created expressly hold land. We have this with the Monastery. We know the AV name. Citizenship is never granted to this AV nor to anyone associated to the Monastery as a landholder. Yet there it is, group controlled land. And this group controlled AV has traded land in the monastery sim.

I know another group established by a citizen for the purpose of fostering projects among CDS citizens and giving them rights to build on group land in LA. This group also made use of a group controlled AV. This group was widely known among frequent users of LA. Bags was a major member of this group and for a time had access to the group AV. I believe this group also formed to support LA. The group has since disbanded and divested its land as new people came into LA first from Cedar Island and later as Abby and her friends showed interest in LA.

Given all this, I doubt RA intended to go beyond merely ensuring that group land was not used to gain or keep citizenship. I don't believe the Chancellor at the time was ever required to break up land already held by a group. I certainly wasn't.

I do remember one citizen being deprived of voting rights because of this law. She was extremely upset and did have the result of her removing her land from AMUA.

Also, I would assert that RA cannot force a group to divest itself of land held before before the law was enacted. Likely, it could stop said group from acquiring new land.

I do agree, however, that the law seems to need clarification.

Tor

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Cindy Ecksol
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

Bromo Ivory wrote:

You know, as I read this, I am thinking that a "minimum impact" compomise might be:

1. Land deeded to a group cannot count towards citizenship of anyone.
2. The maximum amount of land any one group can hold is XXX, or by special charter by CDS (like Monatery, MoCA, etc.)

Would/Could this land count towards the maximum land held by its members, too? If you do that it can get out of people "Gaming" the system to snap up land in a group to take it out of the voter-pool, since it would be neutral.

Ack, Bromo, you can't have it both ways! If land is the qualifier for voting rights AND people own land in a group AND the total land in the group divided by the number of people involved is less than the minimum we define for citizenship, then the members of a group are citizens. To do it any other way would be to discourage groups from forming to do a particular project that would benefit the community. For instance, I might not have time to create a park all on my own, but if I team up with someone else, we might be able to find the time to do it together. That park benefits the community, and it seems like both of us ought to get the benefits of citizenship for that.

As you say, put a max per person on the amount of land and make it apply proportionally to groups and we'll be fine. So if I own 1024 on my own and 4096 with a friend, my total would be 3072. If I owned that 4096 with three friends, my total would be 2048. You get the idea. I think there's already a max, but maybe we need a min also?

Cindy

User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Rosie Gray »

Cindy Ecksol wrote:
Bromo Ivory wrote:

You know, as I read this, I am thinking that a "minimum impact" compomise might be:

1. Land deeded to a group cannot count towards citizenship of anyone.
2. The maximum amount of land any one group can hold is XXX, or by special charter by CDS (like Monatery, MoCA, etc.)

Would/Could this land count towards the maximum land held by its members, too? If you do that it can get out of people "Gaming" the system to snap up land in a group to take it out of the voter-pool, since it would be neutral.

Ack, Bromo, you can't have it both ways! If land is the qualifier for voting rights AND people own land in a group AND the total land in the group divided by the number of people involved is less than the minimum we define for citizenship, then the members of a group are citizens. To do it any other way would be to discourage groups from forming to do a particular project that would benefit the community. For instance, I might not have time to create a park all on my own, but if I team up with someone else, we might be able to find the time to do it together. That park benefits the community, and it seems like both of us ought to get the benefits of citizenship for that.

As you say, put a max per person on the amount of land and make it apply proportionally to groups and we'll be fine. So if I own 1024 on my own and 4096 with a friend, my total would be 3072. If I owned that 4096 with three friends, my total would be 2048. You get the idea. I think there's already a max, but maybe we need a min also?

Cindy

As the law stands now, holding land that is deeded to a group does not qualify you for citizenship, and I think that is how it should be. It doesn't cost much to hold a small parcel in the CDS if you want to be a citizen, so that is not a deterent to anyone that wants to be a citizen. We've already gone through that debate, even as regards to partners. Only 1 person for each parcel qualifies for citizenship, and none for deeded land. This was the intent of the CDSL 16-03 Citizenship Establishment Act http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/faqs ... hment-act/ .

I do think that holding a parcel deeded to a group is an excellent idea for group projects, as you are talking about here Cindy, but I would not want to see it regress back to qualifying as citizenship for all of the members. What if there were 500 members in the group, or 2000? There could be. It would also be a horrendous job to try and calculate how much land is held by each avatar in a group with deeded land and add that to their other parcels to see if they own too much land - creating a management nightmare.

Let's keep it simple and manageable. 1 person owning a parcel qualifies for citizenship, and group owned land allowed, but qualifies nobody for citizenship; this is how it is now. I agree with Bromo that setting a maximum amount of land that a group can hold might be a good idea though, as we don't want all the land owned by groups but not have any citizens. There must be a reasonable amount that benefits the group members and the community as a whole (aka projects).

Last edited by Rosie Gray on Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage, my friend, it's not too late to make the world a better place."
~ Tommy Douglas
User avatar
Arria Perreault
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:14 pm

Re: REPOSTED RA/SC review, please-resolution re: group-owned

Post by Arria Perreault »

Tor Karlsvalt wrote:

If RA intended to prevent deeding to a group, how could it overlook alts created expressly hold land. We have this with the Monastery. We know the AV name. Citizenship is never granted to this AV nor to anyone associated to the Monastery as a landholder. Yet there it is, group controlled land. And this group controlled AV has traded land in the monastery sim.

Maybe a clarification about the Monastery. The Monastery is currently owned by an alt, Mona Schism, which were declared as alt and is not citizen. Mona Schism owns two parcels on the Monastery sim. Using an alt was the best solution to me for separating properly the finances of the Monastery and my own. In the proposal, I have declared that the parcel of the Monastery will be owned by Virtus :

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2395

Virtus is the group that manages the Monastery and it has few activities currently. We used it mostly to share objects and parts of the building. The official owner of the two parcels is and will always be Mona Schism. Anyway the Monastery was a special case and all the project of the sim was made with the idea to host the Monastery itself.

I remember that the idea of group-owned land was to allow people to own more land than the limitation for one citizen on a single sim. We wanted to avoid that one person owns an entire sim. In the same time, it is possible that a group of individuals has a project that need more land.

Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”