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.
