Proposal for the Unification of Colonia Nova & Neufreist

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Ranma Tardis

Proposal for the Unification of Colonia Nova & Neufreist

Post by Ranma Tardis »

I propose the following Bill be introduced to the RA.

The Unification of Sims Act

"Seeing the need to have a more united community, solve the problem of fog in Neufreistadt and seeing a problem of community during trouble with Second Life, this bill directs the Guild master to join the Colonia Nova and Neufreistadt tougher in the most direct way possible. The funds to commit the transfer will be out of the general operating funds of the CDS. The Guild will assist landowners in lowering their builds as required. This will take place as soon as possible working with Linden Labs"

There are many benefits to this action including but not limited to removing of the dreaded Neufreistadt fog. Also lately there have been widespread reports of problems TPing. This will eliminate this problem and make it always possible for citizens to go from one part of the CDS to the other. I am not the only citizen that would like this action.
This will help ensure that the CDS remains a unified community. I can not make the meeting due to duty on Saturday. Please consider this action.

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

Citizens can freely move from one sim to the other right now through teleporting, and you may recall there was some debate and discussion on whether the two sims should be joined. While it's never a bad idea to revisit decisions, I believe there are at least two solid arguments against this.

The first is cost. It costs money to move a sim, money we don't really have to spare at the moment. "But what of all that extra money raised through loans?" you may ask. I would answer that we have far more vital things to do with a hundred dollars at this time; simply ensuring we can operate at a loss for a month or two is good.

The second is labor. This would require that we lower the sim (this part is easy, since Rudeen can simply download the RAW file and alter it) and lower every single build; in the case of some of our private parcels it might be a considerable delay before the owner comes about; in the case of specific ones such as the Church it is impractical due to absence of the technical owner and lack of being set "share to group" - and in some cases, lack of group.

There is also the third argument that some citizens LIKE the clouds.

Lastly, though mostly tangentally, I was under the impression you had sold all of your CDS land and were no longer a citizen, Ranma.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1c8wn3ga]The first is cost. It costs money to move a sim, money we don't really have to spare at the moment. "But what of all that extra money raised through loans?" you may ask. I would answer that we have far more vital things to do with a hundred dollars at this time; simply ensuring we can operate at a loss for a month or two is good.[/quote:1c8wn3ga]

How much would it cost to join the two? How much for a void sim in the middle? I think the two sims should be joined, but by a third sim at some time in the (near, I hope) future.

Ranma Tardis

Post by Ranma Tardis »

[quote="Justice Soothsayer":1slmht4i][quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1slmht4i]The first is cost. It costs money to move a sim, money we don't really have to spare at the moment. "But what of all that extra money raised through loans?" you may ask. I would answer that we have far more vital things to do with a hundred dollars at this time; simply ensuring we can operate at a loss for a month or two is good.[/quote:1slmht4i]

How much would it cost to join the two? How much for a void sim in the middle? I think the two sims should be joined, but by a third sim at some time in the (near, I hope) future.[/quote:1slmht4i]

I thought it was $50 to move. Void sims come in packs of 4. Thus it costs the same a a full sim.

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Justice Soothsayer":1smpx1es][quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1smpx1es]The first is cost. It costs money to move a sim, money we don't really have to spare at the moment. "But what of all that extra money raised through loans?" you may ask. I would answer that we have far more vital things to do with a hundred dollars at this time; simply ensuring we can operate at a loss for a month or two is good.[/quote:1smpx1es]

How much would it cost to join the two? How much for a void sim in the middle? I think the two sims should be joined, but by a third sim at some time in the (near, I hope) future.[/quote:1smpx1es]

Openspace sims only come in packs of four. They would cost the same as one full sim.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":3llf30bs]Lastly, though mostly tangentally, I was under the impression you had sold all of your CDS land and were no longer a citizen, Ranma.[/quote:3llf30bs]

This seems to me to be an important question - I was wondering if the original poster could be persuaded to clarify this matter?

User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Post by Sudane Erato »

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":1pezpplo][quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1pezpplo]Lastly, though mostly tangentally, I was under the impression you had sold all of your CDS land and were no longer a citizen, Ranma.[/quote:1pezpplo]

This seems to me to be an important question - I was wondering if the original poster could be persuaded to clarify this matter?[/quote:1pezpplo]
Ranma is a qualified citizen of NFS/CN. During the period of time following the sale of her CN parcel, she retained citizenship by virtue of her membership in Rudy's Democratic Peace Society group, which has sufficient m2 of land to permit citizenship under the Group Citizenship Bill. She now owns land again in CN.

Sudane.....

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Sudane Erato":2hziliau]
This seems to me to be an important question - I was wondering if the original poster could be persuaded to clarify this matter?[/quote:2hziliau]
Ranma is a qualified citizen of NFS/CN. During the period of time following the sale of her CN parcel, she retained citizenship by virtue of her membership in Rudy's Democratic Peace Society group, which has sufficient m2 of land to permit citizenship under the Group Citizenship Bill. She now owns land again in CN.
[/quote]

And thus is the need for Claude's proposed "citizen register" revealed! :)

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
Ranma Tardis

Post by Ranma Tardis »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":2c3t0fwf][quote="Sudane Erato":2c3t0fwf]
This seems to me to be an important question - I was wondering if the original poster could be persuaded to clarify this matter?[/quote:2c3t0fwf]
Ranma is a qualified citizen of NFS/CN. During the period of time following the sale of her CN parcel, she retained citizenship by virtue of her membership in Rudy's Democratic Peace Society group, which has sufficient m2 of land to permit citizenship under the Group Citizenship Bill. She now owns land again in CN.
[/quote:2c3t0fwf]

And thus is the need for Claude's proposed "citizen register" revealed! :)[/quote]

This is all nice but is off the subject. The recent woes of second life show the need to bring our two sims toughter. I still can not TP from Caledon to either Neu of CN directly but have to go through the mainland. TP is not a subsitute to having our sims united.

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

I like the idea of joining the sims somehow, but very much dislike the idea of radically terraforming NFS to do it. I, by the way, am one of those people who like the clouds. Originally the CN proposal called for placing CN west of NFS. I don't know if the topography remains such that a simple move of CN would solve the problem.

If not, I would vastly prefer putting something in between the existing sims. How we do this depends on how dense we want CDS to be. If we like density, we put a full sim in the middle. If not, we do voids and make the intervening space "rural".

Ranma Tardis

Post by Ranma Tardis »

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":3qoh71dk]I like the idea of joining the sims somehow, but very much dislike the idea of radically terraforming NFS to do it. I, by the way, am one of those people who like the clouds. Originally the CN proposal called for placing CN west of NFS. I don't know if the topography remains such that a simple move of CN would solve the problem.

If not, I would vastly prefer putting something in between the existing sims. How we do this depends on how dense we want CDS to be. If we like density, we put a full sim in the middle. If not, we do voids and make the intervening space "rural".[/quote:3qoh71dk]

It is my understanding it would be a simple procedure and only a few changes would be needed to match them up. As for the objects it would be simple to lower them the required distance.
I don’t think we have the funding for either a new full sim or a block of void Sims. At this time we are debating the form of government. It seems to me that the community is being ripped apart and is on the verge of disintegration. I do not think it will take much more for this to happen. Best case if this happens is that Colonia Nova and Neufreistadt will become separate communities and the CDS goes away. Worse case say hello to Dreamland Colonia Nova and Dreamland Neufreistadt.
I believe that the communities being located next to each other might be enough of a positive force to prevent this.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

I think that the process of terraforming the sims would be more involved, and not a simple process. Land must be moved, structures moved, objects moved. Even if simple in process, it is time consuming.

As for the cost of unification, that is not insurmountable. However, unification does not appear to add value. That is, I don't know if anyone will join the CDS and pay tier just because the sims are unified. If not, any cost outlay will not generate revenue to repay itself. Thus, even with minimal cost, the project may not make economic sense.

Adding new sims, even "rural" sims, might be different. People might well join for the rural sims. I realize that such sims are not recommended for residential use -- but as a longtime rural resident I can say that rural areas in RL are not recommened for residential use. Even with that contrary recommendation, we might find ourselves some German or Roman farmers willing to bear the problems for the benefit of farm life.

Ranma wrote [quote:1e52pqj8]At this time we are debating the form of government. It seems to me that the community is being ripped apart and is on the verge of disintegration. I do not think it will take much more for this to happen. Best case if this happens is that Colonia Nova and Neufreistadt will become separate communities and the CDS goes away. Worse case say hello to Dreamland Colonia Nova and Dreamland Neufreistadt.
I believe that the communities being located next to each other might be enough of a positive force to prevent this.[/quote:1e52pqj8]

I agree that we are in constitutional crisis. The crisi has two foci: 1. general heartburn over the judiciary act which might actually represent strong and general opposition to the act, either as written or as implemented and 2. concern that the RA is growing too powerful relative to other arms of government. I think that we can remedy both problems by restoring the SC to its rightful place in the Constitutional structure, as the source and seat of all judicial power.

I understand that the original concern about the SC was that it was potentially autocratic, as it was not subject to democratic control or review. This indicates that people think that the possibility of impeachment is not enough. This is probably a legitimate concern. To address this concern, I would propose a process that provides judicial independence for a term -- equal to 2 years, or 4 terms of the RA. Thereafter, SC members would have to seek reappointment through the RA confirmation process.

With this additional protection in place, I think the SC could return to its former duties and perform them safely and admirably. However, in any case, if the concern was with the potential autocratic nature of the SC in its judicial function, it makes to sense to replace the SC with another autocratic branch, with even less democratic scrutiny and control, to perform the judicial function. However, that is what we did with the Judiciary Act.

I am mindful that four months of work, including herculean efforts by Ashcroft, went into the judiciary act. However, as I observed at the SC meeting, this is a matter of sunk costs -- and is not a good justification for continuing a failed process. (In common parlance, you don't throw good money after bad.) I have a terrible sense of direction. I often find myself driving the wrong way on the highway. When I do, I turn around. I do not say, "well, I've already gone thirty miles -- its too late to turn around now."

I have great hope for the CDS. We are in crisis -- but I think the crisis is more narrow and more easily solved than the Ulrika crisis was (although I was not here at the time and base my opinion only on what I have read of CDS history). It is far too soon to abandon ship, but we need to start bailing and patching holes in the hull.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

I very much like the idea of the SC having a term of office. Flyingroc proposed such a thing last term. My recollection is that the SC indicated there was a strong liklihood of its being vetoed if it were passed. However, I'd have to check transcripts.

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

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

[quote="Beathan":11xwfd0n]I agree that we are in constitutional crisis.[/quote:11xwfd0n]I don't think we are in a constitutional crisis, I think we are in 'newcomer with an agenda'.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Pat wrote [quote:2keq9qiw]I don't think we are in a constitutional crisis, I think we are in 'newcomer with an agenda'.[/quote:2keq9qiw]

Well, perhaps the next election will test that theory. I think we are in a constitutional crisis. I think anyone who attended the SC meeting, even if skeptical, would have left with the same impression. In fact, the discontent is deeper than even I suspected -- and it is primarily focussed where I describe. I don't see how a crisis involving the transfer of power from the SC to a new and untried institution that cannot even constitute itself to perform a necessary governmental function (or, as our friends across the pond call it, a "function of state") can be called anything other than a "constitutional crisis."

That said, it is a pity that you didn't see things this way back in July. If so, we wouldn't be in a constitutional crisis with large numbers of citizens leaving or threatening to leave because autocratic states are more pleasant and acceptable to our citizens. It should not be this way. It need not be this way. If the current government cannot respond to this crisis -- or if one party refuses to recognize it such that the solution fails on partisan grounds -- then I place my faith in free elections to solve the problem.

Claude wrote [quote:2keq9qiw]I very much like the idea of the SC having a term of office. Flyingroc proposed such a thing last term. My recollection is that the SC indicated there was a strong liklihood of its being vetoed if it were passed. However, I'd have to check transcripts.[/quote:2keq9qiw]

Perhaps now that the very existence of the SC as a meaningful and viable institution is at stake, the SC would think differently about exercising its veto. Further, if the change were done as a constitutional amendment, I see no basis for SC veto. In any case, the power to enact this change lies solidly in the RA as currently constituted and empowered.

Last edited by Beathan on Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”